Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Stornoway Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

ROYAL IRISH RIFLES (GEORGE FULLERTON).

Mr. O'NEILL: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the case of Mr. George Fullerton, late Royal Irish Rifles, which was considered by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in 1924, any statements were received from Dr. Killen and other medical men to the effect that, in their opinion, Mr. Fullerton's condition was due to war service; whether any of these medical men were given an opportunity of giving oral testimony before the tribunal; and, if not, can he arrange for a re-hearing of the case so that the oral evidence of these doctors can be taken?

Colonel GIBBS (Treasurer of the Household): Mr. George Fullerton, late Royal Irish Rifles, appealed on the 7th July, 1924, against the final award made on the 19th July, 1921, for his disability, gunshot wound, neck. His appeal came before a pensions appeal tribunal on the 16th October, 1924, when the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction as the appeal had not been made within the statutory period of one year after the notification of the final award. In February, 1925, Mr. Fullerton appealed against the decision of the Minister of Pensions that his disabilities, nervous prostration, sleeplessness, stomach trouble
and psychasthenia, were neither attributable to nor aggravated by service, and this appeal was heard by the pensions appeal tribunal on the 7th April, 1925. At the hearing of the appeal certificates were before the tribunal from Dr. Killen and another medical man, in which they expressed the opinion that the appellant's condition was due to war service. These certificates were duly considered by the tribunal before arriving at the decision to disallow the appeal.
Had the appellant desired to call these medical men as witnesses he was entitled to do so under the Statutory Rules of the pensions appeal tribunals and the tribunal would have been ready to grant an adjournment to enable them to attend. The pensions appeal tribunals can also adjourn any case on their own motion and request, although they cannot compel, the attendance of any witness whose oral evidence will, in their opinion, be of real assistance in deciding the case.
By the War Pensions (Administrative. Provisions) Act, 1919, the decisions of the pensions appeal tribunals are final and, therefore, there is no power to arrange for a re-hearing of the case.

Mr. O'NEILL: Is the effect of that answer that nothing further can be done for this man, although before the War he was perfectly healthy and is now a complete physical wreck?

Colonel GIBBS: I will make inquiries.

DEPENDANTS (FUNERAL EXPENSES).

Mr. THURTLE: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is prepared to take steps in order to ensure that the funeral grant, now available under children's regulations for Section nine children, shall be available in all eases of motherless children who die whilst in receipt of pension?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I have no general authority to pay the funeral expenses of children or of other dependants. The circumstances which make it necessary to pay such additional expenses in the ease of the small class of neglected children, who are under the entire care of the Ministry in consequence usually of an Order of Court, do not obtain in the case of other classes of children.

Mr. THURTLE: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman thinks it would be necessary to change the Royal Warrant to enable him to do this?

Major TRYON: I must have notice of the exact form in which the change would have to be made. It has always been the policy of successive Governments to maintain this distinction.

FACTORY INSPECTORS.

Mr. BASIL PETO: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any representations adverse to the present practice of inspection of factories where only men are employed by women inspectors; and whether, in view of the objection to this practice both on the part of employers and workmen, he can arrange that this practice is discontinued in future?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Some, but not many, representations of this nature have reached me from employers, and I should like to inform my hon. Friend that in March of this year I issued directions to the Factory Department that generally speaking industries of a heavy nature should be inspected by men only; similarly that certain kinds of work in connection with women's employment should be left to the women inspectors. I am always prepared to consider special eases, and if my hon. Friend will communicate with me as to any particular case, I will endeavour, if it can be done without detriment to the service, to fall in with his wishes.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (LODGER FRANCHISE).

Colonel DAY: 5
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the representations of the Greenwich and other Metropolitan borough councils asking for an amendment to the Representation of the People Act so as to afford lodgers occupying furnished rooms franchise for municipal elections; and whether legislation will be considered on these lines?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have received representations from a few Metropolitan borough councils on the subject. The proposal will he noted for consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE SYSTEM.

Viscount SANDON: 7.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will set up a Committee to investigate the desirability of establishing a unified police service throughout the Kingdom under his Department?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This subject has already received a good deal of consideration and I may refer in particular to the Report of the Committee on the Police Service, presided over by Lord Desborough, who did not favour such a change in the police system.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

POLICE PROCEEDINGS (SIREFFPUTE).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 9
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state, for the period from 1st May to 1st November, the number of persons against whom proceedings have been taken by the Sheffield police for offences arising out of the coal dispute and dealt with under the common law and the Emergency Powers Act, respectively?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Proceedings have been taken against 169 persons under the ordinary law, namely, in five cases fur offences against the person and in 164 cases for stealing coal or wood hum railways, etc. Proceedings have been taken against 56 persons under the Coal Directions Regulation, and against 23 persons under Emergency Regulations 20 or 21.

Mr. PALING: May I ask the home Secretary whether he intends to institute proceedings under the Emergency Regulations against, the members of the Stock Exchange who booed one of their members a few days ago?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is it not a fact that those who were prosecuted under the Emergency Powers Act might equally well have been prosecuted under the common law?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

PROHIBITED MEETINGS.

Mr. WILSON: 11.
also asked the Home Secretary whether it was by his instructions that the meeting at Swallow-nest, which is two miles to the east of Woodhouse and one mile beyond the city boundary, and the meeting at Halfway, which is two miles south of Woodhouse and one mile beyond the city boundary, were both banned on 14th November, whereas a meeting at Woodhouse, which is one mile within the Sheffield city boundary, was not banned?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The meeting at Halfway was prohibited by the Chief Constable of Derbyshire under the general authority given by me on the 19th October in pursuance of No. 22 of the Emergency Regulations. As regards the other two meetings I would refer to my reply to the hon. Member for the Rother Valley on the 22nd instant.

Mr. OLIVER: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether it was under his instructions that the step was taken of refusing to allow Mr. V. Williams, a member of the Derbyshire Miners' Association, to address a meeting of miners at Ripley, Derbyshire, on 17th November or thereabouts; and, in view of Mr. Williams' good record during the dispute and the number of miners' meetings he has addressed without any complaint from the police, he will state the reason for this prohibition?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I stated on the 22nd instant in a reply to a question by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, I have issued no specific instructions in regard to Vincent Williams. Action has been taken by the Chief Constable under the general authority granted by me on the 19th October in pursuance of No. 22 of the Emergency Regulations.

Mr. OLIVER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why this man was prohibited from speaking at this particular meeting when his record is such as would warrant him being allowed to speak?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member is aware of the record of Mr. Vincent Williams.

Mr. OLIVER: Yes, I am.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: He was prosecuted in May during the General Strike for issuing one of those lying bulletins, which are w e11 known to hon. Members, and he was convicted and sent to prison for it.

Mr. OLIVER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the issuing of a bulletin during the General Strike is any justification for prohibiting this man from speaking on the miners' dispute at a miners' meeting, he being a member of the miners' association?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It depends entirely upon the circumstances. I do not mind telling the hon. Member that the bulletin was one stating that the Welsh Guards had mutinied.

Mr. OLIVER: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that Mr. Williams had spoken probably at 100 meetings, and why should ha be prohibited from speaking at the 101st meeting?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That may be so, but I do not know. Perhaps the authority responsible in the 100 meetings was not quite certain of the identity of this gentleman, but it so happens that he fell in with a chief constable who was very much up to the mark.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not the case that this man was prohibited from addressing this meeting because of instructions from the Conservative Association in the district?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly not.

Mr. LEE: Is the Home Secretary aware that the 100 meetings this man addressed have all been in one area where he is fairly well known to the police round about where he lives, and there has been no prohibition or record of anything against him?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can only repeat what I have said, that the particular chief constable who was responsible, with a full knowledge of the facts, came to the conclusion that it was not desirable to allow this meeting to take place.

Mr. HAYES (for Mr. J. H. THOMAS): 8.
asked the Home Secretary whether it was on his instructions or with his knowledge that a Mr. H. Pollitt was
prohibited by the local Chief Constable from addressing a public meeting in Derby on Sunday, 21st November, 1926; and whether he will state the grounds for such action?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This meeting was prohibited by the Chief Constable of Derby under the general authority given by me on the 19th October, in pursuance of No. 22 of the Emergency Regulations. Mr. Pollitt was one of the speakers advertised by the Communist party to take part in their intensive campaign to prevent the miners from returning to work.

DONCASTER BOARD OF GUARDIANS (LOANS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any complaints from local authorities within the area of the Doncaster Board of Guardians against his insistence upon immediate repayment of all loans which have been sanctioned for special relief during the mining dispute; is he aware that this action has caused an increase in the rates for the current half year of several shillings in the pound; that the rents of ordinary workmen's dwellings have increased from two to three shillings a week; and, in view of the embarrassment of all sections of the community, will he consider spreading repayment of these special loans over a longer period?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received one such complaint against the increase in the rate levied by the guardians, but no such representations have been made to me by the guardians themselves. I understand that the rates have already been levied, and see no reason for my intervention, even if this were otherwise desirable.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister not aware that this exceptional rate at the present moment is being felt much more than would be the ease in ordinary circumstances, and does he not think that loans for such a very special purpose as this ought to be spread over a longer period than is permitted in this case?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the guardians had approached the Ministry, their representations would, of course, have been taken into consideration, but no such representations were made.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that every local authority in the area Covered by this board of guardians has protested against the shortness of the loan; and, seeing that the rents of miners all over the country have been increased by 2s. or 3s. a week, does he not think that some of the miners are going to pay back directly what they are now being called upon to pay indirectly through their rent?

OUTCROP WORKINGS (FATAL ACCIDENTS).

Mr. WILLIAMS: 52.
also asked the Secretary for Mines how many fatal accidents have occurred at outcrops from 30th April, 1926, to the latest date for which figures are available?

Captain Viscount CURZON: I have been asked to reply. From the information in the possession of my right hon. and gallant Friend, from 30th April to 24th November 43 accidents, resulting in the death of 50 persons, have occurred in connection with the working of outcrops.

Oral Answers to Questions — WANIISIEN INCIDENT (PAMPHLET).

Captain FOXCROFT: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has had brought to his notice a pamphlet recently printed in this country accusing the British gunboats "Cockchafer" and "Widgeon," and the armoured British merchantman "Kiawo," of wholesale and wanton destruction of life and property at Wanhsien on 5th September; and whether he proposes to proceed against the authors or publishers of such statements?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention has been drawn to this document. I regret that it appears not to be possible to take any proceedings against the printers or publishers. The authors are abroad.

Captain FOXCROFT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that taking action would lead to a repetition of the very disgraceful libel upon our sailors, who are unable to defend themselves?

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Home Secretary make representations to the Foreign Secretary that he should publish papers showing what, in the view of the Government, are the true facts?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure my right hon. Friend's only desire is to give the true facts. I agree that this paper contained a detestable libel on the action of the British Navy, and if it were possible I would take proceedings.

Captain FOXCROFT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it will be possible to take steps to obtain powers to deal with these matters and do something to stop them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There are many considerations which I have to bear in mind, and one is that I think a prosecution in this case would do more harm than good, because this pamphlet has not been seen by a good many people.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Foreign Secretary that diplomacy by gun-boats is apt to lead to misrepresentations of this kind?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TEACHERS (TRAINING REGULATIONS).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, in order to ascertain how far the latest Regulations of the Board for the training of teachers was likely to determine the supply of pupil teachers and student teachers, a statement setting forth the Board's new scheme was submitted to the parents of all student teachers appointed to commence duty in Sheffield in August, 1926, inquiring whether under the new scheme

—
1924.
1925.
1926.



Boys.
Girls.
Boys.
Girls.
Boys.
Girls.


Number of Competitors
1,904
1,138
1,760
1,267
2,105
1,405


Number of Schofarships awarded.
148
116
105
93
108
92

Of the awards made in 1924, 66 were postponed, the number of schofars actually proceeding to the universities in that year being 198.

they would be able to present their children as prospective teachers, and that the replies showed that the new proposals would deter 90 per cent. of the prospective teachers who would otherwise be drawn from the area; and whether, in view of the shortage of teachers which would result, he will cause full inquiry to be made in this and other areas as to the sources from which the shortage will be made up, and report the results to the House?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I am aware of the inquiry referred to in the first part of the question. The Board's Regulations provide for a continuance of existing arrangements in areas where continuance is desirable, and, in circulating the Regulations, I invited local authorities to make proposals accordingly.

SCHOLARSHIPS.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give the number of schofarships to universities awarded by the State in 1924, 1925 and 1926; and the number of competitors in each year, men and women?

Lord E. PERCY: As the reply to this question consists of a number of figures, I will, with the right hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The information asked for is as follows:

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, DOWNHAM ESTATE.

Colonel DAY: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Education if his atten-
tion has been drawn to the School strike on the Downham estate, within the area of the Bromley, Kent, Education Committee, where parents are refusing to send their children to School on account of the distance that has to be travelled; and whether any steps are being taken to-provide accommodation at a reasonable distance?

Lord E. PERCY: I am aware of the difficulties referred to. A new School for about 1,000 children is being provided by the local authority on the estate, and I see no reason to doubt that they are making the best interim arrangements which are feasible in the circumstances for the temporary accommodation of the children.

Oral Answers to Questions — CASUAL VAGRANTS, SKIPTON (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. W. BAKER: 20.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Skipton Guardians are still using cells for the accommodation of two casual vagrants in defiance of the order of his Department; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I am glad to say that the guardians are providing additional accommodation which will remove this overcrowding.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

SICKNESS AND DISABLEMENT BENEFITS.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 21.
asked the Minister of Health what was the aggregate amount of sickness and disablement benefit paid to members of approved societies for the first nine months of this year; what was the corresponding amount paid during the first nine months of last year; what was the income from contributions during the same period this year and last year; and what was the amount of the State contribution during the same period this year and last year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with
permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I regret that the information asked for by the hon. Member as to the amounts of Sickness and Disablement Benefit paid for the first nine months of 1925 and 1926 is not available, as returns showing the amounts paid by Approved Societies for each kind of benefit respectively are obtained and tabulated in respect only of complete calendar years.

The accounts of the Central Departments show that during the periods specified in the question the amount of cash issued out of the National Health Insurance Fund to Approved Societies in England and Wales to enable them to defray the cost of all benefits administered by Approved Societies and of the administration of those benefits was as follows:

Sum issued from National health Insurance Fund to Approved Societies to defray Cost of Benefits and Administration:


—
Period from 1st January to 30th September.


1925.
1926.



£
£


England
12,093,000
14,56l,000


Wales
953,000
1,179,000



13,046,000
15,740,000

It should be mentioned that the expenditure of Approved Societies on benefits was increased on and from 4th July, 1926, by the coming into operation on that date of schemes for the distribution of additional benefits out of the surpluses made available on the results of the valuations of Approved Societies valued as at 31st December, 1923.

The income from contributions and the amount of the State contribution (representing the amount required for payment of the statutory proportion of the cost of all national health insurance benefits and administration, together with the cost of central administration) in the
respective periods were approximately as follows:


—
Period from 1st January to 30th September.



1925.
1926.


Income from Contritions:*
£
£


England
17,250,000
15,600,000


Wales
1,071,000
708,000



18,321,000
16,368,000


Amount of State Contribution:†




England
5,100,000
4,400,000


Wales
389,000
325,000



5,489,000
4,725,000


* The ordinary rates of contribution were reduced at 4th January, 1926, from 10d. to 9d. a week for men, and from 9d. to 8½d. a week for women.


† The statutory proportion of the cost of benefits and administration, payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, was reduced from 1st January, 1926, from two-ninths to one-seventh in the case of men, and from two-ninths to one-fifth in the case of women.

GOVERNMENT AUDIT.

Viscount SANDON: 23.
asked the Minister of Health what action he will take with reference to the Report of the National Insurance Audit Department as to the financial irregularities therein revealed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Every matter referred to in the Annual Report of the National Insurance Audit. Department has previously formed the subject of individual report by the Government Auditor of the society or branch or insurance committee concerned. A copy of each such report is supplied by the National Insurance Audit Department to the appropriate central department, where the whole course of administration is under continuous surveillance, and, upon receipt of any report of a Government Auditor drawing attention to defects or irregularities of any kind, such steps are immediately taken as the circumstances of the case require.

DENTISTS' TREATMENT (FEES).

Colonel APPLIN: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware
that certain approved societies have refused to pay dentists the new Regulation fees; and what steps he proposes to take to bring these approved societies into line with the majority?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The new scale of fees for dental treatment has not been laid down by Regulations, but has been arrived at by agreement between representatives of approved societies and the dental profession. I am aware that a few societies have not yet adopted the scale. I am watching the position, and, in the event of its becoming clear that the adoption of the scale by a society is essential to the provision of a satisfactory service for its members. I will take such steps as are necessary to deal with the matter.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it not the case that some approved societies have declined to operate the scale because they have not sufficient money to operate it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should not like to answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — INFANTILE PARALYSIS (SCHOOLS).

Captain FAIRFAX: 22.
asked the Minister of Health the extent of the outbreak of infantile paralysis at Upping-ham School; and whether any other public School has been attacked by this epidemic?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: According to the information in the possession of my Department, this outbreak was limited to two cases, one of which proved fatal, but a third boy is reported to have developed the disease after his return home. The answer to the last part of the question is, as far as my information goes, in the negative.

Colonel DAY: Is it the fact that this School has been closed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Does my right hon. Friend think it desirable, when an epidemic occurs in a School, that the institution should be closed, so that the risk of infection is spread all over the country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a request for an expression of personal opinion. I have no powers to deal with the closing of schools.

Mr. AMMON: Is it not the fact that the School at Broadstairs was not closed on account of the outbreak?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOFLESLEY BAY LABOUR COLONY.

Mr. LANSBURY: 26.
asked the Minister of Health how many men have been accommodated at the Hoflesley Bay Labour Colony during the 12 months ended 30th September; the total cost per head for each man and the amount charged by the Central Unemployed Body to boards of guardians for the maintenance of men sent by them to the colony; and the number of men who have been found employment on the land or have emigrated, and to which Colonies or Dominions, or have found employment in London or other towns?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of men accommodated at the Hoflesley Bay Colony for the period in question was 1,003; the total cost per man per week, including overhead and institutional charges, was about 22s. 4d.; the amount charged by the Central Unemployed Body to boards of guardians was 18s. 6d. per man per week; 31 men found employment on the land, nine emigrated to Canada, three to Australia, and one to New Zealand; 50 found other employment and, in addition, 47 left the colony with good prospects of employment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 27.
asked the Minister of Health what has been the expenditure under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act up to 30th September, 1926; and what was the estimated expenditure for the same period?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The expenditure under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, in England and Wales, chargeable to the Pensions Account for the period up to 31st September, 1926, is approximately £4,750,000. An estimate of expenditure for the whole of Great Britain for the fifteen months to 31st March, 1927, is given in the Report of the Government Actuary on the financial provisions of the Bill (Cmd. 2406/1925). No separate estimate has been made for the period specified in the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOUNDLING HOSPITAL SITE.

Mr. SMITHERS: 31.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of seeking powers to enable the Government to purchase the site of the Foundling Hospital with a view to exercising some control as to its disposal and of facilitating the occupation of this site by the. University of London should they so desire?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The Government have no intention of purchasing the Foundling Hospital site.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY NOTES (DESIGN).

Mr. RHYS: 32.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to engrave a fresh design on Treasury notes, in view of the proposed alteration in the royal title, as recommended by the Report on Dominion Status of the Imperial Conference; and, if so, who will select one?

Mr. McNEILL: I do not think the question of a fresh design arises. Some of the letterpress may need a slight alteration in due course, after the legislation required by the recommendation of the Imperial Conference has been passed.

Mr. RHYS: Wilt my right hon. Friend see that Northern Ireland is represented in any new design?

Mr. McNEILL: I think it is premature to put that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFF INCREASES).

Colonel CROOKSHANK: 33.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what increase of civil servants took place between 1st April and 30th June, 1926; the Departments in which these increases have been made; and whether these additional workers are likely to be retained?

Mr. McNEILL: I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the statement presented to Parliament (Command Paper 2722), which will give him the information he desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

POWER ALCOHOL (MANUFACTURE FROM SUGAR BEET).

Colonel DAY: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what action has been taken with a view to the manufacture of alcohol, for power purposes, from sugar-beet?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The manufacture of alcohol for power purposes from sugar-beet has been fully considered by the Government this year, and a small Expert Committee was appointed to consider certain technical questions, including the probable cost of production. The Report of the Committee (published by the Stationery Office in July last) lends no support to the belief that the production of power alcohol would be a profitable undertaking at the present time, even with the assistance of the same proportionate subsidy as is now given for the production of beet sugar, and the Government accordingly decided that they could not adopt the proposal.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a development of this process would cause the price of petrol to decline?

Mr. GUINNESS: That is a matter of opinion on which I could hardly be expected to commit myself.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the Committee's decision on that matter?

Mr. GUINNESS: If the hon. Member wishes to go into that, I think that, as the question is a technical one, he had better read their Report?

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will obtain reports on the results of recent researchs into foot-and-mouth disease carried out under official auspices in France, Germany, and the Netherlands, which are reported to prove that the formation of lactic acid in the meat within 24 hours of the death of an infected animal destroys the virus; and, if so, will he consider the removal of the embargo on the importation of con-
tinental meat, provided such meat has been killed at least 24 hours before importation?

Mr. GUINNESS: The experiments referred to in the question were carried out by scientific workers in Holland, and the Netherlands Government has been good enough to provide the Ministry with details. The experiments claim to show that the virus of foot-arid-mouth disease, existing in the flesh of animals infected with that disease, is destroyed by the lactic acid which in a short time develops in the dead tissues. It is argued that carcases of animals imported from the Continent to Great Britain cannot carry infection, since sufficient time would have elapsed between slaughter and exposure here to permit of the destruction of the virus. The Ministry, however, possesses conclusive evidence that disease was introduced into Lanarkshire by imported carcases of pigs, and, again, that disease has been spread in this country by means of carcases of animals drawn from all infected farm but which showed no visible indications of disease. The Dutch experiments deal with flesh only, but the Ministry is conducting experiments on the duration of the virus in all parts of the animal, and results have already been obtained indicating that certain parts of the carcase remain infective. Under these circumstances I am not prepared to remove the prohibition of the import of fresh carcases from countries infected with foot-and-mouth disease.

SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY (PERMANENT LAND WORKERS).

Mr. HAYES: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now state the number of people who can be regarded, in the light of the experience of 1926, as being engaged in permanent employment on the land in connection with sugar beet cultivation?

Mr. GUINNESS: Employment on the land on sugar beet cultivation is mostly seasonal. I have no information as to the number of persons permanently engaged.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

FISHING INDUSTRY (WOMEN WORKERS).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any Report has yet
been received from Lord Blanesburgh's Committee on Unemployment Insurance with regard to the position of women workers in the fishing industry; and, if so, what action the Government proposes to take?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The Committee has not yet made a Report.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. LANSBURY: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men have passed through the day and residential training establishments organised by his Department; the weekly cost per head, including all charges, in each establishment; how many men have been found regular and permanent employment, and the nature of such employment in this country; how many have emigrated; and to which Colonies or Dominions?

Mr. BETTERTON: Up to 10th November, 1926, 1,646 men had passed through a course of training at the four centres, exclusive of 492 others who either Voluntarily withdrew from training or were discharged for unsatisfactory conduct. Of the total of 1,646, 989 are known to have found employment in this country, and 250 proceeded overseas—98 to Canada and 152 to Australia. I am unable to state to what extent the employment found in this country, which covers about 30 different occupations, is permanent.
I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the weekly cost per head.

Mr. LANSBURY: Are any of the men now at the Essex Colony farmed out to farmers for work?

Mr. BETTERTON: The Colony, of course, is not in Essex but in Suffolk. As it is a different question perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.

Following is the statement promised:

The weekly cost per head, exclusive of capital charges, was, for the quarter ended 30th September, 1926, as follows:



Weekly cost per head.



s.
d.


Non-residential Wailsend
27
5


Birmingham
26
9


Residential Claydon
42
2

No comparable figures are available for the Brandon centre, as the buildings necessary for the accommodation of a full complement of trainees there were not completed until after the end of the period referred to.

EMPLOYERS' NOTES.

Mr. LOWTH: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a number of employers in the Manchester district refuse to sign any papers presented to them by men seeking employment, thereby destroying the only evidence an applicant for employment could produce to satisfy the rota committees or Employment Exchanges, and the men are thereby charged as not genuinely seeking employment and are refused insurance benefits; and will he cause inquiries to be made immediately into the matter?

Mr. BETTERTON: I will inquire into the matter, if the hon. Member will let me have particulars of any specific cases which he has in mind where benefit has been refused on account of the failure of the applicant to produce notes from employers. I must, however, dissent from the view that such notes are the only possible evidence an applicant for employment could produce to satisfy a rota committee, and this is made perfectly clear in the current directions to committees.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that rota committees are insisting on written proof of attempts to find work by the unemployed?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, I am certainly not aware of that.

Mr. OLIVER: Could not spine scheme be devised by the Ministry to place the onus of proof on the rota committees if they dispute the statement of the workmen?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is an entirely different point. If the hon. Member will look at the directions to local committees, which are in the Library, he will find the instructions in paragraph 48 which meet the point he has in mind.

Mr. OLIVER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that it is not
the workman who is not carrying out the instructions, but the rota committee not standing by them.

Mr. BETTERTON: If the hon. Member can bring any such cases to my notice I will gladly go into them.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES, MANCHESTER.

Mr. LOWTH: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons, male and female, who were registered at the Manchester Employment Exchanges on 30th October or a later date if possible; the number of persons who claimed unemployment insurance benefit; the number sanctioned; and the number refused?

Mr. BETTERTON: On Monday, 15th November, there were 25,952 males and 10,534 females on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the Manchester area. Of this number, there were claims to unemployment benefit in respect of 24,809 males and 9,751 females, including claims disallowed or disqualified in the case of 1,989 males and 418 females, and others in which a decision had not yet been given.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have applied for unemployment benefit in the City of Glasgow during the past three months and the number of persons refused the same in that period; and if he will state the number of women affected by such decisions and the number of men?

Mr. BETTERTON: During the three months ended 15th November, 1920, a total of 96,460 fresh and repeat claims for unemployment benefit were lodged at Employment Exchanges in Glasgow. During this period 72,686 claims for extended benefit were considered by the local committees, of which 61,700 were recommended for allowance and 10,986 for disallowance. The recommendations for disallowance numbered 7,400 in the case of men and 2,899 in the ease of women. Statistics are not available regarding the decisions on the claims for standard benefit.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons drawing unemployed benefit in
Glasgow who are below the age of 18, and the number of persons below that age who have been refused benefit during the past three mouths?

Mr. BETTERTON: At 15th November, 1926, there were 1,918 claims for benefit current at Employment Exchanges in the Glasgow area in respect of persons under 18 years of age. During the period 10th August, 1926, to 15th November, 1926, 3,426 claims to extended benefit by persons under 18 were considered by the local committees in Glasgow, of which 687 were recommended for disallowance. Corresponding statistics are not available regarding the disallowance of claims to standard benefit.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Captain BENN (for Mr. T. THOMSON): 19.
asked the Minister of Health the total amount of poor relief paid to able-bodied unemployed from the date of the Armistice to the present time?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Figures based on the classification of "able-bodied unemployed" are not available for the period specified. The total amount of out-relief in money and kind paid to persons ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation and their dependants from the date of the Armistice to the 25th September, 1926, is approximately, £46,000,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAMEROONS (FLOGGING).

Mr. W. BAKER: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement regarding the representations which have been made to the Government with a view to the reintroduction of flogging of the native workers in the Cameroons as a disciplinary measure in respect of petty complaints, and upon which a report was made to the International Labour Office; and whether he will give an assurance that in no circumstances will such powers be given to private employers?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I am neither aware that any such representations have been made nor of the report to which the hon. Member refers. Reference to the latest report on the Cameroons will show that flogging is illegal except as a judicial punishment for certain serious crimes
and no further pledge seems necessary, though I will gladly give the hon. Member an assurance in the sense desired.

Mr. BAKER: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the official document in which the Report appears, will he make further inquiries?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Do I understand if the Government are undertaking public works they have not a right to inflict this summary punishment?

Mr. AMERY: Flogging in the Cameroons is only permissible for certain serious crimes. I have already given the hon. Member a general assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (POLL TAX).

Mr. LANSBURY: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report of the Committee appointed by the Government to inquire into the question of Poll Tax in Ceylon has yet been received; if so, what steps the Government propose to take to give effect to the Committee's recommendations; and will the Report be published?

Mr. AMERY: The Report of this Committee has been published in Ceylon as a Sessional Paper. Provision has been made on the annual Estimates to meet the cost of the recommendations of the Committee, which involved the grant of compensation to local bodies for the remission of the tax.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-IMPERIAL RELATIONS.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee adopted by the Imperial Conference on 19th November will be printed and circulated as a Command Paper?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Report referred to by the right hon. Member will be embodied in the summary of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference which will be laid before Parliament.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this Report important enough to publish in a separate sheet?

The PRIME MINISTER: The question might possibly be raised later. I am in hopes that the proceedings themselves may be available at the beginning of next week.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the conclusions reached by the Committee on Inter-Imperial Relations, whether any change is contemplated in respect of the right of a Governor to refuse assent to any Measure passed by a Dominion Parliament or to reserve any Measure for the consideration of the Crown?

The PRIME MINISTER: This aspect of the position of the Governors-General was not dealt with in the Report of the Committee on Inter-Imperial Relations, and I am not aware that any change is contemplated.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is there any change in the right of veto?

The PRIME MINISTER: No change that I am aware of.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the conclusion reached by the Committee on Inter-Imperial Relations that questions of judicial appeals are to be settled in accordance with the wishes of the part of the Empire affected, he will undertake that steps shall not be taken to impair the right of appeal now enjoyed by British subjects from the Courts of India and every British Dominion without the consultation of the Imperial Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give any assurance that Parliament would be consulted in the event suggested except in so far as legislation by Parliament would be necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL.

Captain FAIRFAX: 48.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to take the Wild Birds Protection Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to name a date.

Mr. PALING: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the advisability of introducing a Bill for the protection of miners against the rapacity of coal-owners?

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Mr. W. BAKER: 49.
asked the Prime Minister the value of the contributions per head which are made by Great Britain and each of the Dominions toward the costs of the defence of the Empire?

Mr. McNEILL: The information desired by the hon. Member is not at present available. The necessary inquiries, which will take some time, are, however, being made, and I will circulate the results in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Oral Answers to Questions — PIER DUES, STRACHUR.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 53.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the new proprietor of the pier at Strachur, in Argyll, has intimated to the Clyde Cargo Steamers, Limited, who are the only company carrying general goods by sea to Strachur, that from and after 27th November he proposes to charge them pier dues which, in fact, are in excess of the total amount derived from the freight in all goods transported to and from Strachur; that the company have accordingly intimated that they cannot call at Strachur any more, in reply to a suggestion from the proprietor that if they decline to pay, increased dues their vessels should cease calling; that the proprietor has increased the dues on goods transported by from 300 to 1,000 per cent. over those charged by his predecessor; that Strachur is not accessible for goods transport from Glasgow, unless by sea, except at considerable expense and inconvenience, the nearest piers being Kilmun, 15 miles, and Otter Ferry, 15 miles, the landing of goods at either of which would involve considerable extra transport by road; and that the inhabitants of the whole district will be put to inconvenience and expense on the cessation of the calling of the steamers; and whether he will take steps to remedy the state of affairs which has now arisen?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I understand that the Clyde Cargo Steamers Limited, have intimated that they will cease calling at Strachur Pier after 27th November on account of the dues to be charged on their vessels and the dangerous condition of the pier. I have also received complaints respecting the charges on goods
dealt with at the pier. I am in communication with the owner of the pier in regard to the matter and will acquaint my hon. and learned Friend with the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR VEHICLES (THIRD-PARTY INSURANCE).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 54.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to consider snaking it obligatory on every person using a motor vehicle or motor cycle on the public highway to insure against third-party risks; and whether he will consider the expediency of the Government issuing a policy with, and running concurrently with, the licence for the motor vehicle or motor cycle?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave on the 15th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, of which I am ending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is a large amount of money, several millions a year, that could be added to the revenue if the Government would take up this scheme, without any appreciable cost to the, Government?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is not a matter for the Government.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in cities like Glasgow a large number of accidents are taking place due to omnibuses and the persons who are insured have no claim against the owner in many cases because he is not insured and has no goods?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am fully aware of the circumstances outlined by the hon. Member and it is these very circumstances we are taking into consideration in considering the details of the Bill I hope to bring in next year.

Mr. PAACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that the proprietors of London omnibuses have to take out a third-party policy against accidents which covers everything that may happen. Is it not rather hard that if you are killed by a motor omnibus in Glasgow or elsewhere
outside London, you get nothing, but if you have the good fortune to be killed by a London omnibus you get damages?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am as fully aware of these facts as my hon. and learned Friend, and I am considering all the relevant facts in deciding upon the details of the Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Why wait until next year?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter, if possible, on the Adjournment with regard to omnibus accidents.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARISH COUNCIL RELIEF, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of persons in the City of Glasgow who are in receipt of parish council relief at present and the total cost of the same weekly?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): As the answer involves a somewhat lengthy statement of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The City of Glasgow, which has a population of 1,034,174, is situated in eight parishes, but the main portion is situated in the parishes of Glasgow and Govan which have a total population of 968,195.

In the parishes of Glasgow and Govan the total number of persons in receipt of poor relief (excluding lunatics and mental defectives) was 92,938 (38,405 paupers and 54,533 dependants) at 15th November, 1926. This number is made up of 59,052 (18,801 paupers and 40,251 dependants) able-bodied unemployed and miners' families, 28,063 (14,049 paupers and 14,021 dependants) ordinary sane oudoor poor, and 5,823 (5,562 paupers and 261 dependants) ordinary sane indoor poor. Of the able-bodied poor 58,866 (18,713 paupers and 40,153 dependants) were receiving outdoor relief and 186 (88 paupers and 98 dependants) were receiving indoor relief.

The expenditure of these parishes on poor relief (excluding administration, etc., expenses) is estimated at £33,438 for the week ended 13th November, being £16,769 on outdoor able-bodied, and approximately £120 on indoor able-bodied, £10,529 on sane outdoor and £6,020 on sane indoor.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERFORMING ANIMALS INSPECTOR (EXETER).

Captain BENN (for Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON): 10.
asked the home Secretary under what statute he interfered with the choice made by the Exeter local authorities, who appointed an inspector of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals as their officer of the local authority as inspector under the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act, 1925?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: According to my information, the local authority did not appoint the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals inspector as their inspector under the Act, being advised that they had no power to do so since he was not their officer. He was appointed a special constable for the purpose of enabling him to carry out the duties under the Act; and, as I explained in my reply of 18th instant, this is contrary to the Special Constables Order, which is an Order in Council made tinder the Special Constables Acts, 1914 and 1923.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. AMMON (for Mr. B. SMITH): 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to lay upon the Table particulars of the Government proposals for the amendment of the Poor Law.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. A provisional scheme has been published and criticism upon it has been invited from the various bodies interested; the question whether further proposals framed in the light of this criticism shall be made public in the same way, is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMERGENCY REGULATIONS.

Mr. CLYNES: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he
can now state the decision of the Government in regard to the terms and continuance of the Emergency Regulations.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have carefully considered whether it would be possible to regard the recent emergency as at an end, but I am advised that until by district agreements or other means a much larger proportion of men is in work than at present, it would be inadvisable to dispense with Emergency Regulations.
The Government therefore propose to ask the House to pass them to-morrow in their present form, but I am authorised to say that at the earliest possible moment such Regulations as may be no longer needed will be revoked by Order-in-Council.

Mr. LEE: Is the Home Secretary aware that the extra police, as far as Derbyshire is concerned, are all cleared out?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am glad to hear that, and I congratulate Derbyshire on the fact.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that there is any power to revoke these Regulations by Order-in-Council?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am satisfied, and my legal advisers take that view, but if the hon. and learned Member can convince me that it is not legal to do so, I shall he glad to discuss the matter with him and, if necessary, I will ask for a Resolution of the House, but I do not think that will be necessary.

Mr. LAWSON: Are we to take it that the only relaxations in this matter are to be for people who are making fortunes out of plundering the consumers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Regulations for the distribution of coal will certainly continue.

Mr. BATEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Friday is a short day, and that there will not be sufficient time to discuss the Regulations?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think if we all exercise a self-denying ordinance we shall have time.

Mr. BATEY: No. We shall not.

Mr. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to enforce his own Regulation dealing with the fixing of the price of coal?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The enforcing of the Regulations relating to coal rests with my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines. I will mention to him my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the Home Secretary aware that there are many of us on these benches who feel that he has used these Regulations very unfairly, and that the time on Friday will be very limited, because of the indignation there is on these benches in regard to the action of the Home Secretary in making these Regulations an instrument of the Tory party in various parts of the country?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a political argument.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Prime Minister to state the business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: In the event of the Emergency Regulations discussion not finishing to-morrow evening, it will be continued on Monday. We shall also take on Monday the Second Reading of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Bill [Lords]; the remaining stages of the

Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland Bill;
Industrial Assurance (Juvenile Societies) Bill [Lords];
Local Government (County Boroughs and Adjustments) Bill [Lords];
Births and Deaths Registration Bill,
and the Second Reading of the Mental Deficiency Bill [Lords].

Tuesday: Remaining stages of the

Small Holdings n ad Allotments Bill;
Horticultural Produce (Sales on Commission) Bill [Lords];
Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday: Second Reading of the

Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Bill [Lords];
Judicial Committee Bill [Lords].
Committee stage of the Judicial Committee Money Resolution;
Palestine and East African Loans (Guarantee) Money Resolution.

Thursday. Motion dealing with the Exchequer Contributions under the Rousing Acts;

Report stage of the Palestine and East African Loans [Guarantee] Money Resolution.

Friday. It is proposed to give time for the remaining stages of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, which is a Private Member's Bill.

If time permit on any day next week we shall proceed with other Orders on the Paper.

Mr. CLYNES: In that list of business there is no reference to the Coroners (Amendment) Bill, which was to have been dealt with in Standing Committee yesterday. I should like to ask the intention of the Government in relation to that Bill. In regard to the business for Thursday, can the Prime Minister say when the terms of the Motion dealing with the Exchequer contributions under the Housing Acts will be available? In regard to Monday's business, does the Prime Minister expect that any continued discussion en the Emergency Regulations can be terminated in time to deal with the further long list of Bills to which he referred?

The PRIME MINISTER: In regard to the last question, the right hon. Gentleman knows that I never expect anything. With respect to the Coroners (Amendment) Bill, arrangements will be made to proceed with that Measure in Committee. It is not down in next week's business, because it has not yet gone through the Committee stage. On Monday the Motion in regard to the Exchequer contributions under the Housing Acts will be published.

Captain BENN: In regard to the statement made by the Prime Minister that he may postpone for consideration the Resolution confirming the Emergency Regulations until Monday, is it not a fact that, under the Act, this House is required to confirm these Regulations within seven days of the issue of the Proclamation?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is why I mentioned Monday rather than Tuesday.

Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that the Regulation was issued on Saturday, although it is true that the House was not informed until after three days had elapsed? Will it, therefore, be in conformity with the Act if the Resolution is postponed until Monday?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think time period dates from the time when Resolution is laid.

Captain BENN: Why did not the Government conform to the Statute, and communicate the Message forthwith to the House of Commons?

The PRIME MINISTER: Notice was given as promptly as possible—on the second working day.

Captain BENN: Is it not possible that the Government, by the device of not complying with the Statute, may prolong these Regulations without the assent of the House of Commons?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May I ask whether the Coroners (Amendment) Bill will be brought before a Committee upstairs, and whether it is proposed to pass it through the House before Christmas?

The PRIME MINISTER: It will be brought before the Committee certainly, and it will be passed in this House if there be time.

Mr. STEPHEN: With regard to the business down for to-day, may I ask whether the Government propose to take the Third Reading as well as the Report stage of the Rating (Scotland) Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to get it. I cannot say that we shall.

Mr. HARDIE: You will not get it.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Amendments have been put down to this Bill which are very obnoxious to many of us, and if they are persisted in, we shall feel it necessary to try and prevent this Bill passing at all.

Mr. R. MORRISON: With regard to the original statement of the Prime Minister, can ho say whether it is the intention of the Government to pass the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Bill through all its stages this Session? It has not vet reched Committee stage.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I am not in a position to give a definite reply to that question. A great deal must depend on the progress that is made with the business next week, which I have already announced.

Mr. LANSBURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any assurance from his own supporters that they will attend the next meeting of the Committee on the Coroners Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman has had sufficient experience of this House to know that all parties suffer certain difficulties in getting hon. Members to attend Committees.

Mr. PALING: Is the Prime Minister not aware that it was the Tory Members of that Committee were not present, and if we are to have a Committee stage again, will he give the House an assurance that he will take the same measures to make his own supporters work longer hours as he did in the case of the miners?

Motion made, and Question put,
That other Government Business have precedence this day el the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 72.

Division No. 498.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Bt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fraser, Captain Ian
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Penny, Frederick George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Apsley, Lord
Gott, Sir Park
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Asnley, Lt.-col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Atholl, Duchess of
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'Id., N.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grant, Sir J. A.
Raine, W.


Balniel, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ramsden, E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Berry, Sir George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Remnant, Sir James


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rentoul, G. S.


Blundell, F. N.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Rhys, Hon. C A. U.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hanbury, C.
Ropner, Major L.


Bourne, Captain Robert Crott
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Russell, Alexander west (Tynomouth)


Brass, Captain W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briscoe, Richard George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henlcy)
Sandon, Lord


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Savery, S. S.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Shepperson, E. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gon. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hong. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Skelton, A. N.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Smithers, Waldron


Burman, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Somerville A. A. (Windsor)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hurd, Percy A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hutchison G.A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E)


Chapman, Sir S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J,
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Christie, J. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stott, Lieut. Colonel W. H.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Clayton, G. C.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, s.)


Cope, Major William
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
MacIntyre, Ian
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Craig, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
McLean, Major A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Crott, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wells, S. R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macquisten, F. A.
White, L cut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Davidson. J. (H ertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams. Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Meller, R. J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Merriman, F. B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Womersley, W. J.


Elveden, Viscount
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Fairfax. Captain J. G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.



Fielden, E. B.
Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYE3.—


Finburgh, S.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G (Ptrsf'Id.)



Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nuttall, Ellis



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James


Baker, Walter
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Kelly, W. T.
Sinclair, Major sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Lansbury, George
Sitch, Charles, H.


Batey, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Lee, F.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bromfield, William
Livingstone, A. M.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Connolly, M.
MacNclll-Weir, L.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
March, s.
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Colonel Harry
Maxton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Fenby, T. D.
Morris, R. H.
Viant, S. P.


Greenall, D. H. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Palin, John Henry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.
Westwood, J.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Whiteley, W.


Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)


Harris, Percy A.
Purcell, A. A.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Hayes, John Henry
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Campbell




Stephen.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. AMMON: As it is still Question Time, may I ask whether it is possible for any representative from the Treasury to answer Question 34 now?

Mr. SPEAKER: A Minister is not under an obligation to wait for the second round.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to bring before the attention of the House a personal matter, on which I want an explanation. On Tuesday evening last, between six and seven o'clock, I banded in to the Table three questions which were due to be answered to-day. On looking at the Order Paper yesterday I found that none of my questions were there, and I immediately approached the Table in order to find out why they had been omitted. I was then told that I had been notified of certain errors in my questions which had to be remedied. I had received no such notification, and subsequent inquiry at the Table revealed the fact that no notification had been sent. With some minor alterations two of those questions were put on the Paper, but the third question was held back for further supervision and, if necessary, correction, on the ground, I understand, that there was a reference to a foreign Government, and it was not considered pofitic for the question to appear in that form. I want to put it to you that the question I put down contained nothing that could be construed into a reflection upon a foreign Government or upon individuals who
were not named, but who are referred to in the question. I do not know whether I should be in order in reading the question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that would be desirable. I intend to invite the hon. Member to see me in the course of to-day about that question. It certainly ought not to be read in advance.

Mr. MACLEAN: I accept your ruling, but I want to put it to you that there is nothing in the question to which exception can be taken, not so much, at any rate, as appears in certain questions which have passed the Table and have been put to Ministers in the House by hon. Members only this week. I would like to know why it is that certain questions coming from certain Members of this House seem to be more strictly supervised than questions coming from hon. Members of other sections of the House. I submit that an hon. Member of this House, according to the Rules of Order relating to Questions, has a perfect right to put a question asking for information. He has a perfect right that this question shall appear, or, if there is something wrong, to be notified that his presence at the Table is required in order that what is wrong in the question may be corrected; and that this should be done as soon as possible. That has not been done in this case, and I submit that when questions are put down for Ministers to answer at subsequent dates if anything happens to those questions, if there is anything wrong in them, the Member
ought to be notified as soon as possible, so that there should be no delay in the appearance of his question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have looked into the matter to which the hon. Member refers, and I have to express to him my regret that by inadvertence the customary notification was not sent to him on Tuesday. The fact is that his questions were at the Table, by inadvertence, put along with questions in respect of which cards had been sent; and that is how it happened. The House will remember that Tuesday last was a day of very great pressure as far as the officials at the Table were concerned. There were no fewer than 17 Divisions, and there was a large number of Amendments involving close attention to the minutes (duties which come first), so that I think it is not altogether to be wondered at that there was on this occasion an absence of the usual notification.
I demur to the suggestion that there is a right to notification. There is a practice that wherever practicable, having regard to the exigencies of business, hon. Members receive such notification. The hon. Member, if he will look in Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice," will find the words, "subject to the exigencies of business." It is desirable that notification shall he always sent if it be in any way possible. There are occasions when an hon. Member hands in a question just as the House is rising, and it is impossible to get into touch with him in time that day. In the present case I hope the hon. Member will accept the statement I have made. His question came to my personal notice only just before the House rose last night. If the House had sat longer yesterday I should then have asked the hon. Member to see me, as I propose to ask him to do to-day, in regard to one of his three questions. The other two, which require purely verbal alterations, will appear on the Paper.

Mr. MACLEAN: I accept the explanation, but I want the House to realise that one of your statements does not apply to my questions. You have said that when questions were handed in as the House was rising, the Member concerned could not be notified. My questions were handed in between six and
seven o'clock on the Tuesday evening. I must refer to one other matter, and that is the right of Members to have notification. While Erskine May says, "as exigencies of business may permit," the most recent ruling, given in this House by your predecessor, was in 1920. I have looked up all the precedents in Erskine May. The most recent ruling was in 1920, regarding a question which had been handed in by Mr. Hogge, and had inadvertently been left off the Order Paper in the same way as mine have been. Mr. Speaker's statement then was:
I regret that the hon. Member was not told. It was owing to the absence, through illness of some of the Clerks at the Table. The procedure is that, whenever a question is handed in and not allowed, the Clerks at the Table inform an hon. Member. Owing entirely to the unfortunate incident which I have mentioned, this was not done in this particular case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1920; col. 2101, Vol. 134.]
The fact that other Members received notification on the Tuesday appeared to me to indicate that the exigencies of business did not affect the matter, and consequently I thought it best to raise it to-day. One last word. While I accept the explanation, I am informed the two questions, with minor alterations, were altered on the Tuesday night, and they have not yet appeared on the Order Paper. They are not even on the Notices of Motion issued this morning. It was because of that that I felt it necessary to raise the matter here.

Mr. SPEAKER: It was pure inadvertence, due to the pressure of work.

Sir NICHOFAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take notice of the innuendo conveyed in the original question pit to you by the hon. Member, namely, that there was unfair discrimination with regard to questions that were handed in at the Table?

Mr. SPEAKER: I did notice it, but I thought I could trust the House to pass that over. I think the House is perfectly well aware that I apply the same rule to everybody. Questions from different parts of the House at times cause a certain amount of difficulty. I cannot praise or blame any one part of the House in the matter.

Mr. MACLEAN: I was quite prepared to let the whole thing drop, but as this
particular matter has been raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle), I cannot do so now. I am accused of having made an innuendo against certain individuals in this House. There appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-day a question put by an hon. Member who sits on the benches opposite. That question viofates in every way the position put up to me at the Table with regard to questions that ought not to be asked in relation to foreign Powers. You, Sir, know my question and have seen it. Had it appeared on the Order Paper in the form in which I handed it to the Table, it would have contained no reference in any way, no innuendo or reflection as to what is being done by the foreign Power to which the question drew attention. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle North is absolutely unfounded. There is in the OFFICIAL REPORT a question that is more distinctly and directly carrying a reflection on a foreign Power than my question did.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On that point I want to submit that there is a growing dissatisfaction among certain Members of this House that at the Table they do not get equal treatment with other Members of the house. In view of that, can you take any action to inquire into the position?

Mr. SPEAKER: I would only comfort the two hon. Members by saying that I have had similar feelings expressed from other parts of the House with regard to the way in which I have dealt with their questions. My blue pencil is quite impartial.

Orders of the Day — RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Rates on lands and heritage not usually let for less than a year but occupied for part of a year.)

Without prejudice to the provisions of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Acts, 1911 and 1920, when any lands and heritages in respect of which a rate might be imposed upon the occupier, not being lands and heritages usually let for any period shorter than one year, shall not be occupied by the same occupier for the whole year from the term of Whitsunday in any year till the term of Whitsunday in the year following, but shall be occupied for part of such year by a new occupier, the rating authority, or any other authority having statutory power to levy a rate, may, if they think fit, impose and levy on and from such new occupier who occupies the same for any part of such year, whether his name appears in the valuation rofl or not, a proportion of such rate for that year corresponding to the period of his occupancy, and in the case of a burgh the rating or other authority may, if they think fit, impose and levy on and from the owner of such lands and heritages the proportion of such rate, if any, corresponding to the period during which such lands and heritages were occupied during the said year by any other occupier, and every such owner charged with and paying such occupiers' rates shall have relief against such other occupier corresponding to the period of occupancy, and so far as he fails to recover the amount payable by such other occupier he shall he entitled to repayment from the rating or other authority upon lodging a claim on on before such date as may he fixed by the rating or other authority, without prejudice to the right of the rating or other authority to make adjustments with such owner in respect of any sum subsequently recovered by him in respect of such occupiers' rates.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is the result of an undertaking which I gave in Committee in reference to an Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). I did not like the drafting of the hon. and learned
Member's Amendment in Committee, and I undertook to re-draft it before the Report stage. The result is embodied in the Clause which I now submit to the House. It proposes that in the case of land and houses in country districts, usually let for more than a year, power shall be given, where there is a break in the tenancy in the middle of the year, for the rating authority at their option to charge the new occupier with his proportion of the rate, although his name is not on the valuation rofl. In the, case of burghs the existing power is preserved to the authority to recover the rate for the earlier part of the year in which there is a break from the owner as at present. That is a continuance of the power already existing under the Burgh Police Act. There is also a provision giving the owner who fails to recover from the occupier what he has had to pay to the local authority in respect of an occupier's rates the power to get back from the local authority what he has paid on account. This power is already given under the House Letting Acts, and we thought it only fair that the owner who fails to recover in these cases should have a similar power.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I cannot say that I followed the Lord Advocate in his explanation, which might have conveyed much more. It is true that in Committee we were promised a Clause of this character, but I do not think the Lord Advocate's explanation quite conveys all that was origiNally intended. Perhaps it is because I am unable to grasp his explanation and the meaning of this Clause, but he might have been a little more explicit and he might have gone a little more fully into certain aspects of this proposal.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I am not quite clear as to why it is proposed to give these new facilities to owners of land. If land changes tenants in the course of the year, are we to understand that the owner can recover from the incoming tenant? I take that to be the meaning of the Clause.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The occupier.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Well, of the occupier. You recover from the first occupier. Will the first occupier have the right to recover from the second occupier? I want to be clear on that point.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would also like a little more information in connection with this new Clause. If the owner fails to recover the rates from the occupier, and if the owner himself is responsible in large measure for not receiving the rates from the occupier, if it is due to his own negligence or carelessness, does it mean that under this Clause the owner is going to be able to claim from the rating authority that which has been lost because of his own lack of care, or because he has dealt in an improper way, as some owners and factors do, with the people who are in the tenancy of his houses, and whose rates have not been paid because of the way in which they have been treated? I want to know if they are going to be secured by means of this new Clause. I want some safeguard with regard to the negligence or carelessness of the owner in this connection. Possibly the

Lord Advocate may be able to tell me that my fears regarding the treatment of the tenants in this particular instance are not well founded, but I certainly want to know what is going to he the position and how we are going to judge whether there has been negligence or carelessness on the part of the owners by reason of which the rat-s have not been paid.

The LORD ADVOCATE: If you do not try to recover, you do not fail to recover. The power which we are giving here to the landlord to get back out of the rating authority what he has failed to recover is similar to that which is already in the House Letting Act. We thought that if it was fair in the one, case it was equally fair in the other.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 69.

Division No. 499.]
AYES.
[4 5 p.m


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Luce,Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Apsley. Lord
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macintyre, Ian


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fielden, E. B.
McLean, Major A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Finburgh, S.
Macnaghten. Hon. sir Malcolm


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ford, Sir P. J.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Balniel, Lord
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macquisten. F. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Marriott. Sir J. A. R.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Meller, R. J.


Berry. Sir George
Gates, Percy
Merriman. F. B.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Brass, Captain W.
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Briscoe, Richard George
Grant, Sir J. A.
Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cllve


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Neville. R J.


Brown,Brlg.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, N wb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Burman, J. B
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Penny, Frederick George


Burton, Colonel H. w
Hammersley, S. S.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hanbury, C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pownall. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Chapman, Sir S.
Haslam, Henry C.
Raine. W.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hawke, John Anthony
Ramsden, E.


Christie, J. A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Remnant. Sir James


Clayton, G. C.
Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Rentoul, G. S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ruggles-Brise. Major E. A.


Cockerill, Brig.-Genera! Sir G. K.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandon, Lord


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H..
Hutchison, G. A.Clark (Midin & p'bl's)
Savery, S. S.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepperson, E. W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthoert
Skelton, A. N.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Smithers, Waldron


Dixey. A. C.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Edmondson, Major A. J,
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Elveden, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley,Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley. Lord (Fylde)


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wells, S. R.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
White, Lieut.-Cot. Sir G. Dairymple-
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)



Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Major Cope and Mr. F. C.


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Thomson.


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, W. I.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Ammon, Charles George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sltch, Charles H.


Baker, Walter
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Barr, J.
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
Lowth, T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cluse, W. S.
MacNeill-Welr, L.
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
March, S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Oliver, George Harold
Wallhead, Richard C


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Palin, John Henry
Watson, W. M. (Dunlermllne)


Fenby, T. D.
Paling, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenall, D, R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Westwood, J.


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Purcell, A. A.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprlny)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mayday, Arthur
Rltton, J.
Windsor, Walter


Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, G. H,
Saklatvala, ShapurJI



Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James
Mr. Hardie and Mr. Maxton.


Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The following stood on the Order Paper in the name of SIR JOHN GILMOUR.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Classification in case of occupiers' share of poor and certain other rates may continue for five years.)

The LORD ADVOCATE: In view of a new Clause later on the Order Paper, I do not propose to move this new Clause.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to certificates of valuation.)

Where any amount or sum is required under this Act to be apportioned or allocated among two or more rating authorities according to the rateable valuation or the gross annual valuation of the respective areas of such authorities, the clerk of the town or county council by whom the valuation rofl relating to any part of such areas is made up shall, so soon as the same shall have been authenticated under the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, or Section sixty of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903, give a certificate of the rateable valuation or the gross annual valuation, as the case may he, of such part to the clerk of any council, authority, or board by whom such apportionment or allocation as aforesaid requires to be made.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to a move, "That the Clause be read Second time."
The Association of Education Authorities, among others have asked us to provide for certificates of valuation being given to them in cases where their areas or districts cover more than one rating authority. Under three Clauses in the Bill, the parish authorities, the District Board of Control, and the education authorities, may have occasion to make an allocation. For that purpose, they do not want the details of a valuation rofl. What they require to know is the total valuation of each of these parts or parishes within their area. Therefore, it is simply some total figures that they require. Although this might have been done by administration, and although it has been done as a matter of administration in the case of the education authorities under the Act of 1918, we saw no difficulty in acceding to their request as regards this somewhat simple matter and accordingly we have put down this Clause. May I say that I desire to move it without some unnecessary words that have crept into the Clause. In line 3, there are the words "or the gross annual valuation" and in line 8, again, there are the words "or the gross annual
valuation, as the case may be." Those words are unnecessary, because the only case of allocating a gross valuation would be in the first year of the operation of the new Act, when, as the new kind of valuation rofl will not be available, it will be necessary to allocate on the gross valuation in the valuation rofl of the preceding year. Under the existing law these authorities have the information at present, and there is no need to deal with it in this Clause. I understand that this Clause will fully meet the desire of these authorities, and accordingly I beg to move its Second Reading.

Mr. SPEAKER: As far as I can see, the omission of these words does not mean any material alteration to the Clause.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We must object to the alteration. I think the Lord Advocate should give notice of an Amendment of this kind.

Mr. STEPHEN: I think it is only fair that we should have some time in which to consider the force of the alteration now suggested.

Mr. SPEAKER: If objection be taken, I will put the Clause as it stands on the Paper.

Mr. WESTWOOD: As far as the underlying idea is concerned, I think the Lord Advocate will have met the desire of the education authorities in Scotland, and I am very well pleased that, while I could not convince him Personally, he has since changed his mind as far as this provision is concerned, and I hope that when we come to another proposal further on, his mind will be changed as easily as it has been on this point.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I take a radically different view from that taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Peebles and Southern (Mr. Westwood), and I regard this Amendment of the Lord Advocate as a very sinister one indeed. On his own admission, and as a matter of fact, as an acknowledged practice, there has been no difficulty whatever since the Education (Scotland) Act has been in operation in the clerks of the local councils, town councils, and so on, sup-plying the necessary information, but what is happening here is another stage
in county-councilisation, in the county council control of local authorities, another interference by what I call the county gentry over more democratically elected authorities, who have hitherto had no difficulty whatever in supplying the certificates required. On the Lord Advocate s own admission, there is no justification for this Clause, and he has given us no instance whatever where a county rating authority has been put to any difficulty as a result of not getting these certificates. He has simply moved this New Clause because of the dictation or influence brought to bear upon him by the Association of County Education Authorities in Scotland, and I, for one, object to giving these county authorities any more power or any power whatever over the local authorities.

Clause read a Second time Amendments made:

In line 3, leave out the words "or the gross annual valuation."

In line 8, leave out the words "or the gross annual valuation, as the case may he."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE—(For protection of trustees of port and harbours of Greenock.)

Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, in the application of this Act to the port and harbours of Greenock the deduction of the percentage set out in the second column of the First Schedule to this Act shall be ten per centum higher than the deduction applicable to the class of lands and heritages referred to in paragraph (8) of the said Schedule.—[Lieut.-Colonel Thom.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Colonel THOM: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I understand that the Lord Advocate will accept it, with an Amendment which he will propose.

The LORD ADVOCATE: This Clause, as the House will observe, relates to the port and harbours of Greenock, and proposes to allow them permanently a reduction under the First Schedule of 10 per cent., in addition to the 20 per cent. which is given to harbours generally. I may say at once that the Government are prepared to accept this Clause if its
operation he limited to five years after the Act conies into operation; in other words, if my hon. and gallant Friend is prepared to insert at the beginning of it some such words as, "Until the 15th day of May, 1932." The position, in particular, of the harbour of Greenock has given me and many other Members of the House a great deal of concern. The special trouble in connection with Greenock arises out of what is known as the system of classification, and perhaps the House will bear with me if I try to explain in a few words what it means and what the difficulties are. Under Section 36 of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, a parish, as a rating authority—in those days, the old parochial board—was entitled to classify occupiers for the purpose of rating in such a way as they thought to be most equitable. The result was this, that in some parishes in Scotland the parish council said, for instance, "Banks shall pay three times the occupiers' rate, shops shall pay twice"—I are only taking chance illustrations "and the harbour shall pay only once that rate." That is the sort of thing they did. That classification option was adopted origiNally, I think, by some 200 or 300 parishes, and the number has gradually been coming down in the intervening years until it has reached, at the present time, the very small number of eight.
Under the Agricultural Rates Relief Act, 1896, the number who were entitled to classify was limited to those parishes only which could get a certificate from the Secretary for Scotland under that Act, and briefly it was a certificate that the classification would not hurt the agricultural occupier. At that time, I think, there were some 80 or 90 parishes, and now there are only eight, of which Greenock is one, and I hope I say it without offence to Greenock, because I have no doubt they have done it most reasonably, but the effect undoubtedly has been that in the main Greenock harbour has been subsidised at the expense of some of the other ratepayers, as regards the occupiers' rate, for a good many years, and as compared with the methods adopted in other places, and there is no doubt whatever that, that having been a continuous policy, it would be very hard on Greenock if you made the change too sharp by the effect of this Bill. By sweeping away classification, as the Bill pro-
poses to do—I think I can give the figures approximately, as they are practically agreed figures, and there has been a great deal of investigation into them—it would mean imposing on the harbour trustees of Greenock a sum of between £1,100 and £1,200 a year. This 10 per cent. proposed in this Clause would remove for the five years for which the Government are prepared to accept it something like 11,000 out of the £1,100 or £1,200. I am advised that the additional £1,100 or £1,200 which the Bill would place on the harbour of Greenock consists to the extent of very nearly £1,000 of the effects of the removal of classification, and, therefore, this 10 per cent. almost exactly represents the effect of classification; that is to say, this 10 per cent., if the House follows me, is really the equivalent of the classification.
OrigiNally, the Government had down a Clause, which is still on the Paper, but which I did not move, proposing that classification, where it already existed, should be continued for five years after the Bill came into operation, but on thinking it over and discussing it with some of the authorities, I think it is undoubted that this is the preferable method of getting at the relief which we are anxious to give. Observe that the relief is not a permanent one, but simply a question of whether it is fair to bring this change so suddenly into operation on an existing state of things which has been accepted by all parties in Greenock up to date, and it is not unknown in legislation at Westminster to find a delay or a little breathing space given to people to rearrange matters when a Bill is going seriously to affect them. We propose to the House that it would be fair in this instance to give a period of five years before this change takes place for Greenock to get their affairs in order, because undoubtedly, at the present moment, the industrial and shipping situation are such as to make it peculiarly difficult for any such change to be accepted readily or not to be felt. It is for these reasons that the Government are prepared to accept this Clause on that limited basis.
It means that it delays the effect of the Act being felt quite so suddenly, but I beg the House to observe that all that we are doing is to continue for this brief period a situation which up to now has been accepted by everyone in Greenock, and as that classification was in the
option of the local authorities up to now, and they have never thought of changing it, it is a long standing method of incidence of rating which has been accepted by everybody in Greenock up to date, and, therefore, it seems to us fair that we should give a breathing space for five years to enable the change to be brought about. Classification is a very complicated thing, and one of the advantages of abolishing it is to be found in simplification of rating and uniformity of methods of rating over the country. If we give the relief of 10 per cent. for five years, we are not delaying the abolition of the complicated methods of classification, and we are getting into the simpler methods. It will not stop the Bill coming into operation in that sense, but will merely meal a very simply calculable addition of 10 per cent. to the deduction allowable to this particular ratepayer. As regards the other parishes where classification exists now, and where it is proposed to abolish it, there has been no difficulty, so far as I know, in accepting the immediate coming into operation of classification. For that reason we propose to deal with this particular case in the way I have stated.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: The difficulty in arguing about these proposals is, as the House agrees, that they are far more appropriate for the detail of the Committee stage, because it is almost impossible to make ourselves intelligible on a matter of this kind. Some of us on this side of the House have read a statement which has been made by the Greenock dock authorities. A little later in our proceedings we may have an opportunity of discussing briefly the general system of deductions, but this is precisely the kind of difficulty which arises in the system of deductions. As the Lord Advocate pointed out, the problem in Greenock is in part the problem of classification, together with the complete exemption of this harbour from burgh rates, and the question which affects the House is whether, if you put Greenock on the ordinary 20 per cent. basis under the Bill, you would be giving them in deduction a position different from the concession of 35 per cent., which they enjoy for the poor and education rates at the present time. The broad object of the Schedule is, of course, to
maintain substantially the present position, but that result is not, in fact, achieved in Greenock at all, and an extra burden of between £1,000 and £1,200 year falls on this harbour.
In these circumstances, speaking quite for myself, I thank the Lord Advocate and the Government for doing something to meet the situation, although most hon. Members will probably ask, quite naturally, what is to happen after the period of five years has expired? All I can say is that the harbour authorities are prepared to take it on this basis, many of us would agree that a solution has been found of tie problem under the schedule which appeared to be very difficult, to meet. It was no reply to Greenock to say that the Government were making it part of a uniform scheme. The Government have gone beyond that, and held out hope to all authorities in Scotland that substantially the status quo will be maintained. In point of fact, it was not maintained in Greenock, and, although I am opposed to the system of deductions altogether, I am glad that this step has been taken, in the peculiar circumstances of this harbour, to give them the broad benefit of what has been called the status quo.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: As has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), this question has perturbed many of us very much. Some of us who do not reside in Greenock know it very well, and we know the full facts of the difficulties under which the harbour has been labouring. It gives us, therefore, considerable satisfaction that the Lord Advocate has seen his way, not to give the Harbour of Greenock all that they ask for, but, at any rate, to meet us in a fairly reasonable way. In this world we cannot all get all we want, and we are thankful for small mercies. I am quite sure the Lord Advocate has given infinite attention to this matter and exercised the greatest possible patience in listening to the case of Greenock Harbour. As one who knows something of the inner workings of that body, I think we should accept the Amendment, and thank him for the great patience which he has displayed in coming to that conclusion.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would like a little more information from the Lord Advocate as to how he proposes to put in the limitation of five years. Is he going to move an Amendment later on? I do not notice the five years in the New Clause on the Order Paper.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: May I say a word as Member for the Burgh of Greenock? I am deeply grateful to the Lord Advocate for the infinite patience and attention he has given to this subject. The Corporation of Greenock are glad that the second New Clause standing in the name of the Secretary for Scotland has not been moved, and, although they are not enamoured of the Clause we are at present discussing, I think it is a fair compromise, and I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for finding a way out.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I ask how this concession will affect the average, and to what extent? When this subject was being discussed upstairs, the Lord Advocate then said that it seemed to him that they had no choice but either to abolish classification entirely, and so on. I want to know whether this will affect his average, and, if so, by what amount?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The answer is—immaterial for five years, and nothing afterwards.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment made: In line 1, at the beginning, insert the words
Until the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, and."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Continuance of present exemptions.)

Except as expressly provided in this Act, nothing contained in this Act shall render liable to assessment any person or property not previously liable to assessment.—[Sir H. Crack.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The last discussion showed how difficult it is at this stage to bring out the points we desire to bring out. I only
want to raise the question of the assessment of the universities which was brought up in Committee. In the case of Glasgow University, the valuation is something like £10,000, and the assessment for municipal rates would be £3,000 an enormous amount for that university. Under the Valuation Act of 1854, as I understand, the university was exempt from this taxation, and in Committee, from my recollection of the Debate, we were referred to Clause 26 with regard to this exemption. There it is stated that
in the case of lands and heritages …the gross annual value, except that in the ease of lands and heritages with respect to which there is total exemption from all rates the rateable value shall he treated as nil.
That would seem to afford us perfect security, but, on the other hand, it is pointed out that the university property has not total exemption. It is quite free from municipal, but not from poor rates, and, therefore, this Clause will give us the security which we desire. Here we are only attempting to give expression to a very intricate and legal question of valuation and of incidence of taxation. The Lord Advocate then said—and with it I thoroughly sympathise—that it was very difficult to discuss these matters when the people concerned were not present, and could not answer. It was then proposed that they should be seen by the Lord Advocate. I understand that they endeavoured over and over again to have an interview with the Board of Health in Edinburgh, but they failed to do so, and were told that the matter was under the consideration of the Lord Advocate.
I cannot put the matter with all the knowledge of local taxation or of a legal interpreter of an Act of Parliament, but I have shown where the difficulty and danger lie, and I have shown how our fears have been aroused. I think it would have been desirable to have had an opportunity for those experts who are really able to expound their case, to put the matter before the Lord Advocate or some officer of the Department. That has not been done, and, therefore, I must now appeal to the Lord Advocate, and ask him if he is quite satisfied that the exemption from taxation, which was given by the Valuation Act of 1854, is to be preserved by the new Bill.

Mr. COWAN: I beg to second the Motion.
I hope that this Clause will be accepted by the Lord Advocate. When the matter was brought up in Committee, the Lord Advocate expressed his approval of the purpose of this Clause, that is to say—if I am wrong he will correct me—his suggestion was that the case was already met in the Bill. The fact still remains that the University authorities have felt apprehensive about the wording of the Bill. In Clauses 14 and 26 there are certain expressions which give rise to some misgiving. I hope the Lord Advocate will make it quite clear that the case of Glasgow University is completely covered by the Bill as it now stands. If there be any dubiety of any kind I trust he will see his way to removing it by accepting this Clause, or inserting some words which will put the matter beyond question. A somewhat similar Clause was enacted in the Act of 1854, and I think it will be agreed that it would be better to have some little redundancy in this Bill than to have any matter of this kind left in dispute.

The LORD ADVOCATE: May I say at once that, in my opinion, this Clause is quite unnecessary, because in no way can the exemption at present enjoyed by the University from certain rates be affected by this Bill. This question was raised during the Committee stage by an hon. and learned Member on what is the important Clause, namely, Clause 12. In Sub-section (8) of Clause 12 there is an express declaration that:
Nothing in this Section shall affect the total exemption from any rate of any lands and heritage—
From any rate. The suggestion made in Committee was to add some words to that Clause to this effect: "Whether or not they come under the lands and heritages specified in the First Schedule or not." It is true that as Clause 12 stood at that time, and as it stands now, it did not and does not specifically deal with cases that are not under Schedule I, but are pure gross valuation cases, but there is a Government Amendment on the Paper which expressly brings in under Clause 12 all eases of valuation, whether gross or under Schedule I. The result of carrying that Amendment, as I trust it will be carried, will be that Sub-section (8) of Clause 12 will cover every property in
the country, whether a gross valuation case or a case that falls under Schedule I. I had hoped that that would make clear beyond doubt the point raised in Committee, which I was only too anxious to meet, and I submit that it does make it clear beyond doubt. When that addition is made to Clause 12, that Clause will deal with all lands and heritages, whether on gross valuation or not, which in my view completely safeguards any risk such as is suggested by my right hon. Friend.

Sir H. CRAIK: After the assurances of the Lord Advocate, I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, with-drawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Police rate in Royal or Parliamentary burghs.)

Notwithstanding anything in any enactment relating to the levying of a rate in a Royal or Parliamentary burgh the police rate in a Royal or Parliamentary burgh shall be payable by owners and occupiers in equal proportions.—[Mr. Westwood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Scottish Members who have been associated with local administration will understand that the total cost of the police in the Royal and Parliamentary Burghs of Scotland is borne by the borough general assessment, which is an occupiers' assessment, with the result that the cost of the police is borne entirely by the occupiers. The purpose of this Clause is to levy the rate for police purposes equally on owners and occupiers. While I am prepared to admit that the police do look after the lives of people, and sometimes look after personal liberty, I beg to submit that they are chiefly occupied in defending property and looking after property and, for the life of me, I cannot see why the tenant should have to pay for the cost of protecting the owners' property. Several burghs in Scotland have passed Resolutions in favour of this rate being borne equally by the owner and the tenant. In my own constituency, the Royal Burgh of Peebles unanimously passed a Resolution in favour of this course, and I understand that a Royal burgh represented by the hon. and
learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) was really, shall I say, the instigator in getting other Royal burghs to pass Resolutions in favour of this scheme.
I hope the Lord Advocate will be as reasonable in this matter as he was in regard to the suggestion made by education authorities. I approached him on both these subjects, and want to say, here and now, that he was very courteous, and met me in every way possible, with the exception of giving way—though he has given way on the first suggestion I made, it was not in exactly the way that I proposed. I sincerely hope the Lord Advocate will agree to accept this new Clause, which would bring about the equalisation of rating for police purposes. I know that one of the arguments he will use—at least I am expecting it—is that it will create an anomaly, because in police burghs, which have control of their own police, the system in operation since 1889 will continue. If it be wrong in the case of the Royal and Parliamentary burghs—and I submit it is—for the rate to he borne entirely by the occupiers, it is equally wrong so far as the police burghs are concerned, and the Lord Advocate can rest assured that we on this side of the. House will place no obstacles in the way of having equalisation of rates for police purposes in the police burghs as well.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to second the Motion.
No matter what happens there will be an anomaly here. In the counties the owners pay their share of the police rate equally with the occupiers and the Government give a 50 per cent. grant. In the Royal and Parliamentary burghs the owners get off scot free, subject to the fact that they pay some Imperial taxation, and, through that Imperial taxation, contribute towards the State grant for the maintenance of the police. On this one occasion I can agree to support my hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood), and I trust that when the Lord Advocate sees he is opposed by a united front he will concede what we are asking.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I regret that in spite of the blandishments of my hon. Friends I am unable to accept this Clause. They themselves admit that even if it were accepted there would
still be anomalies, and it is material therefore to see what would be involved by accepting the Clause. May I first point out that there is no separate police rate at all in Scotland. The expenses of the police are included in the burgh general assessment, and the total amount of the burgh general assessment throughout Scotland payable by occupiers is £2,500,000. Therefore, the acceptance of this New Clause would mean putting on to owners a burden of some £1,250,000. That may be justifiable or not, but it is quite outwith the scope and purpose of the present Bill, which is to shift the incidence of rating as little as possible. It is quite true that in two comparatively trifling matters there will be a shifting of incidence as the result of this Bill. One is in the abolition of the average rate—that is rather a technical matter, and I need not spend time on explaining that—and another is the counterpoise in the abolition of the equal division of the rate between owners and occupiers before it is levied. Occupiers' arrears always being greater than owners' arrears, the occupiers' rate is generally found to be greater than the owners' rate, because of the greater arrears. That system being swept away will put those arrears on owners as well as occupiers, but, on the other hand, the owners' average rate in the counties is being abolished, and, roughly speaking, they just about cancel out each other.
I would point out that the proposal in this new Clause is against the recommendations of the Dunedin Committee, and, further, that under the Rent Restrictions Acts the owners will be barred from getting any increase of rent in respect of this increase of rates. We should require to amend the Rent Restrictions Acts in order to put things on to a fair basis. I think it is sufficient, in the first place, to note the admission that, even if we accept this new Clause, we shall not get perfection, because there will still be anomalies, and, in the second place, that by doing this we shall be shifting the large sum of £1,250,000 on to the owners. For those reasons, I ask the House not to accept the Clause.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: With reference to what has been said about the. Rent Restrictions Act, we must not overlook the fact that under that Measure owners
can obtain advances of rent in respect to alterations to their property. Those alterations are not, being made, but the people themselves are having to pay for the repairs, and that in itself is one of the anomalies which has to be recognised in connection with the proposal we are making. Owners are in a much better position to meet the rates, and the equalising of the charges suggested in this new Clause is a fair proposal, even though it does involve a considerable change for those who are better able to bear the burden.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I was astonished at the Lord Advocate's line of reasoning. In my view owners of property in burghs aught to bear a proportion of the police rate, just as owners of property in a county area bear one-half of it. All we are asking the Government to do is to apply to the towns the same principle that is now applied to the counties. I do not suggest that the Lord Advocate was trying wilfully to mislead the House, but in effect he did mislead it. He pointed out the unfairness it would be if we were to put an increased rate on the owners of property in the burghs, but he overlooked the fact that just now, as is shown by the returns in connection with burghal assessments, the owners of property are not paying more than one-fifth as compared with the occupiers. I could give him the figures of one burgh. At the time I took the figures, the total assessment was 5s. 1d. in the £, and the owners of property were paying 11d. and the occupiers 4s. 2d. That is going on over the length and breadth of Scotland, and the proposal in this Amendment is generally supported by the people of Scotland, except those few people who own property inside the favoured burghs. Instead of creating an anomaly, this proposal would only be an act of justice, and we hope the Government will reconsider the position and accept the new Clause.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The case put forward by the Lord Advocate is, roughly, that this is a Rating Bill which is not meant to alter the incidence of taxation as already placed on owner and occupier, and that it tries, as far as possible, to
avoid alteration. But I notice that in later Amendments put down by the Secretary of State for Scotland it is proposed to alter the incidence of taxation, as, for instance, to increase the house factors' commission for collection from 21 per cent. to 5 per cent. As the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) well said, in the counties the tenant is rated one-half and the owner is rated the other half. Some of us on these benches think that is not equitable from the point of view of the tenant, We think a strong ease can be made out for putting the whole of the police rate on the owner, because the property for the protection of which the police are largely maintained belongs to the owner and not to the tenant. The great bulk of the police charges in Scotland arise out of offences and crimes against property, yet the very people for whom the property is maintained, and for whom the police are necessary in the burghs, are not to be asked to make any special contribution for the police. I want to hear a defence of that system. It is quite true that this Bill may not be the proper vehicle for a change; but it can be made the vehicle for it; and, if we are adjusting grievances and altering things which are wrong, why does the Lord Advocate reject this new Clause? As the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) stated, it may be true that this will place a charge of a little over a million pounds on the owners of property, but that million pounds is to-day being paid by somebody else, and somebody else who is less able to pay it. If that burden should not go on the owners of property, far less should it go upon the tenants.
The cost of police is rapidly rising in all parts of Scotland particularly in the south. Recently, the Secretary of State for Scotland sent a letter to Glasgow Corporation asking them to pay certain arrears of wages which were due to the police, and which he thought they ought to get. I am not going to argue whether the wages cost of police is right or wrong, but what I insist upon is that the cost of police is increasing far more in Glasgow than any other social service, health or sanitation, or any of the other public services. The increase in cost in respect of these has not been anything like so great as the increase in the cost of the police. The Secretary for Scotland
has a chance of remedying this matter, but he refuses to do it. I understand one of the leading arguments of Members opposite for giving the factors an increased commission is that it is done in England. If it be an argument that what is done in England should be done in Scotland in that matter, how much stronger is the argument that if a neighbouring county, say Lanark, does it, why should not the burghs, some of which may be in that county, levy the rates on property? I believe the Lord Advocate strives to be fair, but I think all pretence of fairness goes west when he refuses this New Clause. I would like to hear him defending the arrangement whereby the owner of property pays nothing towards the upkeep of the police. The Lord Advocate has sought in many ways to justify his refusal of this Amendment, but he has never given us any argument on the merits of the Amendment itself.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I think the Lord Advocate was quite justified when he said that this is a machinery Bill, and that it is not a Bill for altering the incidence between one ratepayer and another. It is true that it does it in one or two small details, but these are mainly Dart of the working of the machinery. Hon. Members opposite who have been talking about this Amendment are talking nearly 50 years too late.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We were not here 50 years ago.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: That was the good fortune of our ancestors. If this question had been raised in 1889 there would have been something to have been said for it, but these rates have been levied in this way ever since then. It may have been an injustice when it was origiNally imposed, but properties have been bought and sold since then, and the original persons upon whom this injustice was inflicted have gone, and people have adjusted themselves according to the burdens. You will not put that right by inflicting the burdens which were not put upon their ancestors upon the people of the present day. You cannot turn hack the hands of time in that way. A very old tax of this kind is no longer a tax. You have to pay it, but to take it off one set of ratepayers and put it upon another is to inflict a greater injustice
than that which was origiNally instituted. There has been a confusion in regard to the word "property" in relation to police protection. I demur altogether from the suggestion that the police are mainly engaged to protect heritable property. The position is nothing of the kind. The word "property" is a word that is capable of misinterpretation. What the police are mainly engaged in protecting is movable property, which does not belong to the owners of heritable property. OccasioNally a man takes lead off the roof of a house, or there may be an odd case of malicious fire-raising, but that is about all that happens to heritable property. I will give hon. Gentlemen opposite an instance. I am informed that in the Burgh of Oban—I have it from a correspondent—the whole cost of the sewers, which is about the same as the cost of police, is visited upon the owners, and yet it is not the owners who fill the sewers; it is the occupiers. You can always point to such anomalies. Hon. Members opposite, if they come back to power, may bring in a Bill to alter the incidence of taxation all over, and this may be one of the changes they will make. It may be that you will get quit of rates and have local Income Tax instead, because it is a hardship that you should tax industries which have made no profits for years, and tax harbours and so ort. Taxation should be much more modified on property, and the local Income Tax might be a very proper thing to have.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The question of the local Income Tax cannot be considered on this new Clause.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: To tack this Clause on to the Bill and alter what has existed for over a generation may be consistent with abstract justice, but it is altogether outwith the scope of this Bill. At the time of the Second reading I said I considered the whole Bill was disadvantageous to rural districts, and I opposed it on that ground, but the adoption of this new Clause would be the alteration of a custom which has existed far a very long time. If the proposal had been the other way about, if the taxes had been all levied on owners and it was to be put on the occupiers, my argument against the change of incidence would have been the very same, namely,
that a tax which has been long-existent, and which has entered into everybody's calculations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Whether right or wrong!"] I would remind hon. Members of what was said by a famous Lord Chancellor:
It is not so important for the lieges that their laws should be absolutely consistent and coherent with abstract principles, as that things should he fixed so that people should know where they are.
That is a very sound principle in legislation. It is on that account that I think the Lord Advocate has wisely refused to accept this Clause, which would be contrary to the principle on which his Bill is based, that this is merely a machinery Bill.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to grant us this small concession. I think it can be justly stated that the poor people in our big cities require this particular Clause. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) has been arguing that people have always paid this rate, and it would be wrong to break away from the old practice. Only yesterday the hon. and learned Member voted against keeping up art old practice in regard to the marking of foreign goods. We believe that it is a fair and just proposal that the owners of property should pay some share of the police rate.
We have been told that the local authority controls the police, but that is not so, because they only pay the expenses of the police, and that is why we think the owners of property ought to pay some share. Is it fair that the occupier of a small house in a slum paying 10s. per week rent should be called upon to pay the police rate? The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire said this was moveable property which the police had to defend, but if the hon. and learned Member went down to some of the slums of Glasgow he would find that there even the property itself moves occasioNally, and it requires no protection. The only thing that does require protection is the inmate. It is useless to talk about the police protecting that kind of property because everybody's idea is to get away from it as quickly as possible. If people are condemned to live under those conditions, and if there are owners such as I have referred to,
then they ought to pay a fair share of the police rate, and I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will he able to meet us in regard to this New Clause.

Mr. HARDIE: The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) is always entertaining, and today, drawing from his large store of knowledge, he has been trying to make the House believe that it you put a tax on long enough it will become part and parcel of the system under which we live, and no one should think of changing that system. I wonder if the hon. and learned Member is willing to apply that principle to whisky.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would the hon. Member be in favour of shifting the whisky tax on to the shoulders of the people?

Mr. HARDIE: I was going to point out that when the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire was a member of the Glasgow Town Council the position in Glasgow was that the fire brigade was paid only by the occupiers of houses, and it was only after a great agitation by the Labour party that we got what we are asking for by this new Clause. It seems to me that if the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire be correct, he would require to leave the party to which he now belongs, because the whole of his argument is right up against everything that his party claims in relation to the question of the rates when they are out electioneering.
Is there any injustice in this new Clause? Is our proposal just or unjust? Surely there is nothing unjust in asking that those who are receiving service should pay for that service. We all know that the bulk of police service deals with property. If you take the civil cases in Scotland and take them in proportion even to the expenditure in relation to the rates, you will find that there is not one-sixteenth paid on what is called the civil side, and the remainder goes for the protection of property night and day. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire knows this as well as I do. He knows, for instance, that in Glasgow every night there is a continuous police patrof, while the citizens are in bed. What are the police doing then? They are there chiefly to protect property, and that is the position. OccasioNally, there
may be a poor wanderer, and the police-man, while looking after property, will Come up against this chap and put him inside another bit of State property.
I cannot understand why it is that, when it comes to a question such as is dealt with in this Clause, which has a real sense of justice running through it, hon. Members opposite oppose it, because, after all, since service is given to the community why should any part of the community be exempt? I hope

the Lord Advocate will see that his reputation for doing justice will not suffer by accepting this proposal. The Scottish people have always been noted for their sense of justice, and if this Government agrees to place this new Clause on the Statute Book it will add to their reputation for doing justice.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 74; Noes, 167.

Division No. 500.]
AYES.
[5.26 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James


Baker, Walter
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield. William
Lansbury. George
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Stamford, T. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee. F.
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Sullivan, J.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
March, S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Day, Colonel Harry
Maxton, James
Thurtle, Ernest


Dennison, R.
Morrison, R, C. (Tottenham, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Fenby, T. D.
Oliver, George Harold
Wallhead, Richard C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Westwood, J.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Whiteley. W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Wayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.



Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W, C. (Yorks, W. R.. Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Charles


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Scrymgeour, E.
Edwards.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Clarry, Reginald George
Grace, John


Albery, Irving James
Clayton, G. C
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grant, Sir J. A.


Apsley. Lord
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cope, Major William
Grotrian, H. Brent


Astor, Viscountess
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Atkinson, C.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hammersley, S. S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hanbury, C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Haslam, Henry C.


Balniel, Lord
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hawke, John Anthony


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dixey, A. C.
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henley)


Berry. Sir George
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Birchall. Major J. Dearman
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Blundell. F. N.
Ellis, R. G.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hills, Major John Waller


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fairfax. Captain J. G.
Hurd, Percy A.


Brass, Captain W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hurst, Gerald B


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fielden. E. B.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Finburgh, S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Jacob, A. E.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Burman. J. B.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Gates, Percy
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Chapman, Sir S
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Christie, J. A.
Gower, Sir Robert
Loder, J. de V.


Laugher, L.
Penny, Frederick George
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Templeton, w. P.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Tinne, J. A.


Macdonald, B. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ramsden, E,
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


MacIntyre, Ian
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wallace, Captain D. E.


McLean Major A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Rentoul, G. S.
Watson, Sir f. (Pudsey and Otley)


Macquisten, F. A.
Ropner, Major L.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Margesson, Captain D.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wells, S. R.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Meller, R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Merriman, F. B.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Savery, S. S.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Smithers, Wafdron
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wise. Sir Fredric


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Withers, John James


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wolmer, Viscount


Murchison, C. K.
Stanley, Col. Hon G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Womersley, W. J,


Neville, R. J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Steel, Major Samuet Strang



Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Scott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Bowyer.

CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions as to parish rate.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 24, leave out the words "for Scotland," and insert instead thereof the words "of State."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that the rating authority shall, prior to the fifteenth day of June in each year, intimate to parish councils whether there is a credit or debit balance in the parish rate account for the previous year and the amount of it, and in the event of there being a credit balance the rating authority shall, within twenty-one days of the receipt from the parish council of the certificate as to the amount required to he provided by the rating authority for the current year, pay over such balance to the parish council as a first instalment of the amount contained in such certificate.
I move this Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, I think it is right and proper that the rating authority should tell the parish council the product of the rate which they levy for their benefit; and, in the second place, it is very necessary that any surplus which arises after the collection for the year should be used for the benefit of the parish council that calls for this levy. I do not propose that the surplus which exists in many cases should be used at once, but that, if and when the parish council puts in a new demand or a new certificate for a sum of money, the surplus from the previous year should within 21 days be paid over as a part instalment of the demand for the new year. It seems to be only right and proper that, if there be a surplus on the
year's assessment, that is to say, if the rate levied produces more than the sum it was estimated to produce, that surplus should be used to alleviate the expenditure to be made by the parish council in the succeeding year. Under the present arrangement, the assessment of the rate and the time of collection extend over a period of three or four months, and there is no reason why the rating authority should get the benefit of a surplus, through bank interest and otherwise, when the real spending authority, which is the authority for the actual placing of this assessment on the people, has to pay interest on a hank overdraft while they are spending money in the new year. Under this Amendment they would receive any surplus accruing in one year as a part instalment towards the amount which they need for the next year. I think that this is a right and proper provision, and I trust that the Secretary of State for Scotland will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE: An identical Amendment was proposed in Committee by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), and, after I had intimated that the Government could not accept it, it was, by leave, withdrawn without being pressed to a Division. Therefore, the Mover of this Amendment will not be surprised if I say that equally we cannot accept it now. The rating authority, which receives the requisition for the amount required, say from the
education authority, has the duty of laying on a rate to meet the requisition, but any shortage in the collection of that rate falls on the rating authority, and not on the requisitioning authority. In other words, if by the end of the year the rating authority has failed to collect enough to meet the requisition, it none the less has to pay over to, say, the education authority the full amount of the requisition. It is quite true that, if the rate which they have estimated would bring in the amount of the requisition in fact produces a little more, that balance remains in the pocket of the rating authority. The proposal of this Amendment is to take advantage of the credit balance and take no responsibility for the debit balance.
I suggest to the House that there is really no great materiality in this question at all. It is quite clear that it is the duty of the rating authority to esimate its rate as closely as it possibly can, and there is a point that I should particularly like to state—at any rate, it is the opinion of the Government—that the rating authority has no right to lay on a rate which is going to produce a large rest or balance to carry on for the next year. I should have thought that the first person to draw attention to that, and effectively to check it, should be the auditor, because that is not laying on a rate in the right way, but is merely financing your bank account for a period which has nothing to do with the requisition that has been made. If the rating authority does its duty, and lays on its rate as closely as it can to meet the requisition that has been made, it will be found, normally speaking, that in some cases there may be a small debit and in other cases a small credit. That is how it should work out, and the two, in effect, cancel each other out.
The House will remember that in the succeeding year, when the requisition for that year has been received by the rating authority, it is the duty of that rating authority to hand over the amount of the requisition as soon as collected, from time to time, and I should have thought the first thing they would have done, if it were worth while and if they had any surplus in hand, would have been to use it for this purpose; but if rating authorities are doing their duty in the way of close levying of the rates, and are
being kept properly in hand by their auditors, it does not seem to me that any material question can arise under this Clause. The view that the Government take is that, taking one year with another, if the rating authority is doing its duty, it ought to get the advantage of any small credit that there may be in one year to set off against any small debit in any other year, which it has to make up during the gap. The one seems to square the other. This proposal seems to desire to give all the plums there may be, however small, to the requisitioning authority and keep all the debits for the rating authority. For these reasons, the Government adhere to their view.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Would the. Lord Advocate answer my first question—What is the objection to telling the parish council the amount collected under the rate assessed for their benefit?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not think there is any great objection, but, surely, there is no need for any statutory provision for that. They have no interest in knowing. As I understand the matter, the rating authority has to meet the requisition whether it collects the money or not, and the interest of the requisitioning authority is to get the money; they are not concerned with how it is got.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I want to support ' the position taken up by the Lord Advocate. There is something else that I would suggest to the Mover of this Amendment, and he might think it over. In the case of rating authorities in Scotland, and I expect in England also, the year closes on the 15th May of each year. The rates begin to come in in December, January and February of the following year. They have no surplus on the 15th May, and are getting overdrafts on their banks and borrowing money for fully six months of every year. If rating authorities could create a surplus to tide them over that period, they would save millions of pounds to their ratepayers, but they would make that saving at the expense, probably, of the financial interest, which is still very strong. I hope that the Government will keep to their view, and also that the rating authorities will rate generously, in order
to try and save money in the way I have suggested.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Although I understand that my hon. Friend is not going to press this Amendment to a Division, I do not think that the case for it is quite as bad as the Lord Advocate makes out. In the first place, he did not say that the parish council used to collect the money, and that they had to account for and hand over any balance accruing in this way, until the issue, I think this year, of a Circular under which they themselves, as the collecting authority, were subjected to the very practice proposed in this Amendment. In the second place, I think the Lord Advocate is completely in error in supposing that the debits and credits cancel one another. I am informed that it is the fact that the valuations are rising from year to year, and that there is nearly always, in these cases, a surplus and not a debit. If there be a surplus see what is the position of the parish council. They ask for the money and the money is collected. It is their money in that sense. They see the surplus in the hands of the rating authority while they themselves, being short of money, have to borrow at interest, because the surplus, which was collected on their demand, is not available for them. So I think we can say there is a case for the Amendment, although inasmuch as the sole responsibility for finding the money will rest upon the new rating authority, it is perhaps better to leave it alone. There is a case on these lines I maintain, and I think the Lord Advocate should have done greater justice to it.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I should like to take up that point. If the education authority, to take an illustration, have spent more than their requisition and want money to make up the difference, that is hardly a reason—

Captain BENN: That is not what I said.

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is the only way they will require more money before the next year. Either what they are spending is within their requisition or it is not, and it will have to go into next year's requisition.

Captain BENN: Solely it may be that not enough has been handed over to them for their current needs.

The LORD ADVOCATE: It may well be that at the end of the year or the beginning of a new year, when the collection of rates is going on slowly, they cannot meet current expenditure. I do not mean that the one cancels out the other directly.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain this position? If the parish council requisitions £20,000 and the rating authority fixes a rate for the purpose of getting £20,000, but it is found that £22,000 has been collected, what are you going to do with the balance'? Is it to be carried forward to the next year and credited to the council of the parish from which it has been collected, or has it to go into the general poof of the rating authority? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not met that point. There is a desire on our part, not to make more difficult the work of the rating authority, but to be sure that the persons who pay the rates will not be paying them a second time, because through some circumstance over which the rating authority had no control they have collected more money than was requisitioned.

The LORD ADVOCATE: It just shows the distinction that exists under the existing law between the proceeds of a rate and the amount of a requisition. All the education authority are entitled to is the amount of the requisition. What they are trying to get under this proposal is the proceeds of the rate when it is more than the amount of the requisition.

Captain BENN: It is levied in their name.

The LORD ADVOCATE: It is not. The parish rating authority rates for the amount it considers should be sufficient to provide the amount of the requisition. If it exceeds that amount, clearly the balance belongs to the ratepayers and not to the education authorities. The education authorities are only entitled to the amount of the requisition, not a penny more or a penny less. The parties who are entitled to any surplus are the ratepayers generally as providing their parish council with the means of meeting the requisition and other things.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not met the point in connection with parish councils

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I only wish to ask a question.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member may ask a question.

Mr. WESTWOOD: What will happen with rates which have been collected for parish council purposes? The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with education authority purposes.

The LORD ADVOCATE: It is identical. The parish council requisitions the county authority, and if you put the parish council in place of the education authority the answer is exactly the same.

Captain BENN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not tell us whether this practice that is recommended is in fact the existing practice.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not know.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Basis of levying poor and certain, other rates.)

Amendments made:

In page 3, line 5, leave out the words, "and the Acts amending that Act."

In line 24, leave out the word "there-from", and insert instead thereof the words "in respect thereof."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Temporary borrowing powers to parish councils.)

Amendments made:

In page 3, line 35, leave out the word "they", and insert instead thereof the words "the council."

In line 39, leave out the words "and the Acts extending or amending that Act."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to education rate.)

Amendment made:

In page 4, line 38, leave out the words "for Scotland", and insert instead thereof the words "of State."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Apportionment of expenses of district boards of control.)

Amendments made:

In page 5, line 37, leave out the words, "as amended or applied by any subsequent Act."

In page 6, line 22, leave out the words "for Scotland", and insert instead thereof the words "of State."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Abolition of average rate.)

Amendment made:

In page 7, line 11 leave out the words as amended by this Act."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 10.—(County Councils not to assess in police burghs.)

Amendment made:

In page 7, line 11, leave out from the word "shall" to the word "apply" in line 14.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, at the end, to add the words
subject to the following modifications:

(a) references to a royal or parliamentary burgh shall be construed as references to a police burgh; and
(b) the amount of the contribution by a police burgh to a county council shall be paid out of the general improvement assessment or such other rate leviable by the town council of the police burgh for the purpose of any Act of Parliament administered by them and payable by owners and occupiers in equal proportions as the council may determine, but shall not be reckoned in any calculation as to the statutory limit of that assessment or rate."
This is giving effect to a thing I undertook to do in Committee in order to continue the existing practice.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Abolition of exemption from local rates in certain cases.)

Lieut.-Colonel THOM: I beg to move, in page 7, line 39, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that in assessing the value of burial grounds for rating under this Section due allowance shall be made for the exhaustible nature of their asset and the provision to be made for the future upkeep thereof.
This is a very simple Amendment. It speaks for itself.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There being no Seconder, the Amendment falls.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Did the hon. Member rise before?

Mr. MAXTON: Yes, Sir.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Then I will put the Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The LORD ADVOCATE: On a point of Order. I suggest that this is not within the Title of the Bill. It is a pure point of valuation, and is not a rating question at all. The Title of the Bill refers to matters about rating and incidental thereto.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The point has been considered by Mr. Speaker, and I think his conclusion is that valuation is a "matter relating thereto." There are other Clauses in the Bill, particularly 9 and 11, and one of the Schedules, which deal with the question of valuation. It is impossible to rule it out on that ground.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Lieut.-Colonel Thom) did not take some steps to explain the Amendment. The Bill brings these burial grounds within the scope of assessment, and apparently what the hon. Member desires is to have some attention devoted to the fact that they are in the nature of a wasting asset in the process of use. All I have to say about that is that while in a very grim sense they are wasting assets, it seems to me that it would be altogether impossible to deal with that problem in a Bill of this kind and on the lines the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests. In 1919 the Royal Commission on Income Tax discussed the whole question of wasting assets in this country and the kind of allowances which should be made in Imperial taxation. I cannot recall that burial grounds were ever mentioned, but in any event no provision has been made so far for the purpose of dealing with wasting assets, and to begin with burial grounds in a Scottish rating Measure would only complicate the issue, and I hope very much on that ground the Government will not yield to a proposal of this kind.

Captain BENN: It is impossible to avoid a comment on the situation. The hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Lieut.-Colonel Thom) moves an Amendment which he says explains itself. It is objected to on the part of the Government on grounds of order which are found by the Chair to be invalid. It is then demofished in logic by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham).

Mr. MAXTON: In addition—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right.

Mr. MAXTON: On the point of Order. I seconded the Amendment purely for the sake of getting an adequate explanation of the Amendment, and that is not forth-corning yet from any quarter.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid the act of seconding, whether it produces an adequate explanation or not, destroys the hon. Member's right of further speech.

Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that the hon. and gallant Member for Dumbarton has a perfect right, if he wishes, to speak further to his own Amendment?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Lieut.-Colonel Thom), under the Rules, having moved the Amendment, may make a further speech.

6.0 P.M.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The Government cannot accept this Amendment. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has said. If you are going to deal with this matter, you must deal with the whole question of wasting assets from the point of view AL of valuation as a separate subject. It may relieve the mind of my hon. and gallant Friend if I suggest that under the existing law assessors do take into account the question of exhaustion of such subjects as this. To seek to put it into an imperative provision of the kind suggested in the Amendment, would be quite out of place.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 12.—(Rateable values of certain classes of land and heritages.)

Amendments made:

In page 7, line 43, leave out the word "of."

In page 8, line 7, after the word "of" insert the words "an amount representing."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Lieut.-Colonel THOM: I beg to move, in page h, line 21, to leave out the word "thereof" and to insert instead thereof the words "of such local Act."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 8, line, 23, leave out the words for Scotland ", and insert instead thereof the words "of State." In line 26, leave out the words "total or."

In line 29, leave out the word "rates", and insert instead thereof the word "rate,"

In line 29, leave out the words "the order", and insert instead thereof the words "of the local Act modified and adapted as aforesaid."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Mr. MacIntyre: I beg to move, in page 8, line 30, to leave out the words in effect not less than", and to insert instead thereof the words "as near as may be the same as."
I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Sir S. Chapman). It is really a drafting Amendment. The Proviso which we propose to amend gives certain relief to the payers of rates. It gives the same relief that is given under certain local Acts. If the Clause stands as drafted, the effect may be to give more relief. The desire is to give the same relief, and the words of the Amendment carry out that intention.

Mr. R. MacDONALD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, at the end, to insert the words
(3) Save as provided in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of this Section the annual value of all lands and heritages for the purposes of all rates (other than water rates leviable under a local Act shall be the gross annual value thereof, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (6) of this Section or of Section
forty-five of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903, or the corresponding provisions of any local Act.
The purpose of the Amendment is to make clear what is implied in the Clause already, and that is that lands and heritages affected by and getting the advantage of the deductions in the First Schedule, and which are affected by Subsection (2) of this Clause, will be rated on the gross valuation. This is the Amendment to which I referred in connection with the new Clause proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) as making it clear that Clause 12 deals with all the lands and heritagets in Scotland, not only those that are rated en the net annual valuation after deductions have been allowed, but also those which get any deduction and are rateable on gross valuation. This Amendment makes that point clear.

Mr. MAXTON: I did not have the privilege of attending either the House or the Committee at previous stages in the progress of this Bill. Consequently, I do not feel in a very strong position to criticise what is being done now, and have remained for the most part silent. It seems to me that there are an extraordinary number of changes and Amendments which are being brought forward at this stage by the Government spokesmen, cartainly far more than I can recollect on any similar Measure. We are told that they are only drafting Amendments, that it is only a question of words. I do not know how my hon. Friends who have been at the Committee are placed, but I, who have not had close touch with the Bill up to now, am not able to decide whether they are Amendments of words only or Amendments of substance until after you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have put them from the Chair and have declared that "the Ayes have it." You get through the reading of these Amendments with a celerity that is very admirable, but somewhat disturbing to an hon. Member like myself.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not in order, I think, to praise the action of the Chair.

Mr. MAXTON: There is a further Amendment on the Paper, which is something more than a mere Amendment of words. I refer to the Amendment which entitles—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment under discussion relates to the annual value of all lands and heritages for the purposes of all rates, other than water rates leviable under a local Act.

Mr. MAXTON: I am anticipating our proceedings, but I will show the connection between the Amendment to which I wish to refer and the Amendment now before the House if you will allow me to conclude this part of my speech. I allude to the Amendment which proposes to give to private owners of property and their agents a payment of 5 per cent., or 1s. in the pound, on the rates which they collect. At this last stage of the Bill, to insert an Amendment which is to put public moneys into the hands of private tax gatherers is a most vicious principle,

and one which has been denounced from Bible times. I want to see that Clause effectively opposed, and for that reason I do not think that we should allow this particular Amendment, which the Lord Advocate regards as merely a drafting Amendment, to go without a Division, because the Division will give us time to think over some the other Amendments. Time has not been available while we have been rushing through pages 2112 and 2113 of the Order Paper. I therefore propose to oppose this Amendment and to carry it to a, Division.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 70.

Division No. 501.]
AYES.
[6.12 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacIntyre, Ian


Albery, Irving James
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McLean, Major A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fielden, E B.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Astbury, Lieut. Commander F. W.
Finburgh, S.
Macquisten, F. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Ford, Sir P. J.
Margesson. Captain D.


Atkinson, C.
Forrest, W.
Merriman, F. B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Balniel, Lord
Fraser. Captain Ian
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Berry, Sir George
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gates, Percy
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Murchison. C. K.


Blundell. F N
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Boothby, R. J. G
Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grace, John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Penny, Frederick George


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hanbury, C.
Ramsden, E.


Bullock, Captain M.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Reid. D. D. (County Down)


Burman. J. B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rentoul, G. S.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hawke, John Anthony
Ropner, Major L.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H, (Ox. Univ.)
Hills, Major John Walter
Sandeman A. Stewart


Chapman, Sir S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Scott, sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Skelton, A. N.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurd, Percy A.
Smithers. Waldron


Clayton, G. C.
Hurst. Gerald B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jacob A. E.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cope. Major William
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Scott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sueter. Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Loder, J. de V.
Tinne, J. A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lord, Walter Greaves
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ellis, H. G.
Lougher, L.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Elveden, Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Watson. Sir F. (Pudsay and Otlay)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lynn, Sir R. J
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Walls, S. R.


Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Wise, Sir Fredric
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Withers, John James



Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wolmer, viscount
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Womersley, W. J.
Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C.




Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Ammon, Charles George
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E,


Baker, Walter
Hutchison, G. A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Balfour, George ([...]ampstead)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromley, J.
Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F,
Sullivan, J.


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
March, S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Oliver, George Harold
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Palin, John Henry
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Greenall, D. H. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W,
Westwood, J.


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Whiteley. W.


Hall, F, (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.



Henderson, T, (Glasgow)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Ellane)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. T. Johnston and Mr. Maxton.

Further Amendments made:

In page 8, line 40, leave out the words "for Scotland," and insert instead thereof the words "of State";

In page 9, line 5, leave out the words "total or."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Mr. MacIntyre: I beg to move, in page 9, line 8, to leave out the words "in effect not less than," and to insert instead thereof the words "as near as may be the same as."
This is consequential on the Amendment already agreed to.

Mr. R. MacDONALD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 9, line 14, at the end, to insert the words
or to that given by the proviso to Section two hundred and sixty-seven of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, or the proviso to Section two of the Burgh Sewerage, Drainage, and Water Supply (Scotland) Act, 1901, which provisos are repealed by this Act.
The two provisos referred to in this Amendment make the water rate charged in the case of shops only one quarter of the rental. In the ease of the water rates which are laid down under public general legislation, the Bill already repeals this relief, and following what we
have done with regard to similar reliefs in the case of railways and so on5 we think equally in the case of orders which are dealt with privately and under the Acts dealt with in this Clause this relief should be repealed. It is in order to bring it into line with what we have done already that I move this Amendment. In the proviso are the words
but no account shall be taken of that relief to the extent to which it corresponds to that given by Section three hundred and forty-seven of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act.
We do exactly the same with water relief—shall I call it—and we are extending this repeal to private legislation, which we are dealing with under this Clause.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am not quite certain that I understand the effect of this Amendment. Do I understand that the existing exemption is sought to be repealed, and therefore that a new charge will be made on such subject?

The LORD ADVOCATE: This Clause deals with the modification of local legislation to bring it into line with the general provisions of the Bill, and the Secretary of State is the authority who does that, subject to representations and applications. He has to find the equivalent to the existing situation under the words "as near as may be
the same as," which we have put into the Bill. These particular provisions deal with the direction of the Secretary of State. We have already put in the paragraph to which I have referred relating to the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, and this is doing the same for water rates as we have done for other rates.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is a distinction between what is done in Committee and what is done on Report. What I have to be clear about is whether this will bring under rating some subject hitherto exempt.

The LORD ADVOCATE: It does not bring in any fresh subject. It will affect the amount of rate on particular subjects. It is a question of the relative incidence of the rates, but it renders no fresh subject liable to rates.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that it will increase the charge on certain subjects. Will it have that effect?

The LORD ADVOCATE: It will affect the incidence of rating.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid this cannot be done on Report of this Bill, and therefore I cannot take the Amendment now.

Lieut.-Colonel THOM: I beg to move, in page 9, line 15, to leave out the words "Notice of every," and to insert instead thereof the words "Any authority or person making."
This is a purely drafting Amendment, and I move it formally.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I only desire to know whether this is purely a drafting Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel THOM: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, to leave out the words "be given," and to insert instead thereof the words "give notice of such application."
This is also a drafting Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Captain BENN: May I ask how it comes about that the drafting of this Bill is left in the hands of the hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Lieut.-Colonel Thom), and is not in the hands of the Government. I can quite understand the hon. and gallant Member moving subsequent Amendments to an Amendment he has persuaded the House to accept, but it is rather strange that the Government have entrusted the improvement of the phraseology of this Bill to one of their own supporters.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel THOM: I beg to move, in page 9, line 22, to leave out from the word "may" to the end of the Subsection, and to insert instead thereof the words
within one month after the date of the first notice in the said newspaper lodge objections with the Secretary of State with respect to the proposed Order.
This also is a drafting Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to second the Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE: It is quite true that this is only a drafting Amendment, but I am afraid I cannot accept it. With reference to what the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) has said regarding the Amendments which have been moved, if he had suggested any drafting Amendment which would give better words than those in the Bill, I should equally have accepted it. As to this particular Amendment, I prefer the language in the Bill. The Amendment is really restating in another form and in other words what is in the Bill already, and I prefer the language of the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I cannot see why any advertising should take place at all in connection with this matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Lieut.-Colonel Thom) is trying to safeguard the rights of the public. I can understand why there should be an advertisement in the "Edinburgh Gazette," but I do not know why it should be made compulsory.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Lord Advocate will, no doubt, have noticed the words in Sub-section (4)—
Notice of every application for an Order under this Section shall be given once weekly for at least two successive weeks in a news-
paper circulating in the district of the authority by whom the relative rate is leviable.
I ask him to see that the newspaper which is chosen for this purpose is one produced under trade union conditions.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made:

In page 9, line 23, leave out the words "for Scotland," and insert instead thereof the words "of State."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 9, line 25, at the end, to insert the words
Where objections are so lodged with respect to any proposed Order the authority or other person applying for the Order and the authority or other person by whom the objections are lodged shall be entitled to make representation to the Secretary of State.
This Amendment carries out a promise which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) during the Committee stage, and I think it meets what he had in view.

Captain BENN: I would like to express my thanks for the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:
In page 9, line 36, after the second word "the," insert the word "annual.
In line 39, leave out the word "said," and insert instead thereof the word "annual."—[Lieut.-Colonel Thom.]

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move, m page 9, line 42, at the end, to insert the words
(7) The Secretary of State may at any time after five years from the passing of this Act on the application of any association or body representing any class of lands and heritages set out in the First Schedule to this Act by Order direct that the amount of deduction of such class as provided by the said Schedule shall be altered to such extent as he may think proper, and such alteration shall thereafter have effect as if it had been provided and enacted in this Act.
Provided—

(a) that, when any such application has been dealt with as aforesaid, it shall not be competent to make another application in respect of the same class of lands and heritages until the expiry of five years from the date of the determination by the Secretary of State;
(b) the Secretary of State, before making any such Order as aforesaid, shall by
614
means of an inquiry or otherwise, as he may determine, afford an opportunity to associations or bodies representing other classes of lands and heritages to be heard regarding any such application as aforesaid in relation to its effect upon such other classes."
This is an Amendment of considerable substance. It will be seen that the First Schedule relates to deductions from gross annual value of certain classes of lands and heritages for the purposes of rates. It is not advisable that these rates and deductions should be fixed and immovable for all time and that it should be left solely to Parliament to alter them. It ought to be within the power of the Secretary of State for Scotand for the time being to receive applications made to him under Clause 8, and, after due inquiry, to allow a variation in the percentage of deduction allowed. That is a sound proposal. As I said on a previous Amendment proposed from the other side, after you have allowed a thing to go on for a generation it is very difficult to alter it, and you may be doing a greater injustice by altering or endeavouring to remedy what was origiNally thought to he an injustice, if you do it at a time when all the people origiNally affected are off the face of the earth. There are, in this connection, instances where it is possible that there will be a complete change in the reasons for giving abatements. For example, you find land and heritages forming part of the undertaking of an electricity undertaking. They are getting a very substantial abatement. That is largely because of the heavy cost of laying the mains.
It is possible that, with the development of scientific knowledge, and possibly under the new Electricity Supply Bill—though many of us think that that Bill is more likely to stereotype things than to lead to improvement—in a few years' time electricity will be transmitted wirelessly. The result will be that electricity undertakings will be in a different position entirely in connection with the percentages of deduction to be allowed for them. To suggest that we should come to Parliament every time there is to be a variation of the rates is to suggest the using of a steam roller to crack a nut. It would be a mistake. The change ought to be made possible by an administrative Act, after an inquiry by
the Secretary of State for Scotland. It may be said that the Scottish Office would be besieged by people who would be always trying to get their percentages altered. I have provided for that by making it a condition that the arrangement is to exist for five years. That is the period in London for the revision periodically of valuations. I do not think that the Secretary for Scotland need be alarmed at the possibility of there being constant attempts to make changes and variations, because he would have to hold an inquiry, and for that he would probably have to instruct members of the legal profession, who as a rule do not act for nothing, and he might have to call skilled witnesses, who are even more expensive. I demur from the cast-iron system of deduction which is set up in the Bill. It would be more consonant with modern practice if there were a certain amount of elasticity.

Lieut.-Colonel THOM: I beg to second the Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I regret that the Government cannot accept the Amendment. It may well he that in the course of years these deductions, which are fixed on the basis of our present experience, by natural evolution or otherwise, may come to be unsuitable. But two things must be remembered. In the first place we are now fixing deductions, not for each parish, but for the whole of Scotland. Secondly, you can never consider a proposed alteration of a deduction which is allowable to one particular class of heritages without considering it in relation to all the other classes as well. If we have learned one thing in dealing with this Bill in Committee and here, it is how very difficult it is, and how at every turn you are confronted with this question of relative incidence in considering these deductions. That being so, in the first place it is quite clear that five years is not nearly long enough. Secondly, it seems to me that the appropriate body or person to consider these changes is Parliament itself, and not a mere Department, however well presided over by such a Secretary of State as my right hon. and gallant Friend. I am not at all sure that he would welcome this duty if it were put upon him. Accordingly, we take the same view as we took in Committee, that this is not appropriate to the class of subject
with which we are dealing here. It is far too big and difficult a subject to be dealt with in any such periodical or Departmental manner as the Amendment suggests.

Mr. HARDIE: I would like the Lord Advocate to make clear what is contained in Sub-section (6) of the Clause. The question of a basic number of years is a very difficult subject. Let us remember the big changes that are being carried through now with the help of public money. We have great public roads being made or improved, and at the end of 18 months there will be stretches of roads so valuable that on every side the rateable value will increase. Where there is no property the feuing will increase, and where there is property the values will increase. Does the Lord Advocate think that there is anything in the Bill which will bring back to the public the values which it has created by the money it has expended in improvements? That seems to me to be the basis upon which we should have rates, and not the fixing of a number of years. If you fix a number of years what is to happen? Every pound of public money spent on doing something that is necessary increases the values of land and property, and you allow those values to go into the hands of those who have done nothing to create them. That is most unjust. I am sorry that as I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Electricity (Supply) Bill, I was not able to attend the meeting of the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill. This was one of the subjects about which I was concerned. Can anything be done now to safeguard the results, in the form of increasing values, that come from the expenditure of public money?

Mr. SULLIVAN: I wish to support the Amendment. It is a bad thing to have these percentages stereotyped for all time. It may happen that property will increase in value, and it is only right and proper that there should be a periodical revision of the percentages.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am rather surprised at the position which has been taken up by the Mover of the Amendment and by the Government. I am inclined to believe that the Mover of the Amendment has forgotten the advice of a great Lord Chancellor whom he quoted to us
to-day. He informed us that people desire to know definitely what is the position, even though it is not what they like. In moving this Amendment, the hon. and learned Member seems to have forgotten his own advice.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In the course of my remarks I said that what I wanted was to prevent the same situation arising as had arisen on a previous Amendment.

Mr. STEPHEN: The hon. and learned Member has forgotten the first speech that he made on this Bill to-day. It is that speech to which I was referring. If he looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will be a little more chary about handing out the advice of a Lord Chancellor. I am surprised at the attitude of the Government to the Amendment. It is apparent that there is need for the revision of these figures from time to time. It may be that the method suggested by the Amendment is not the most suitable, but it certainly would seem that in a, developing society there should be, instead of the cumbersome process of putting a Measure through this House, some way of considering the figures relative to the condition of different industries at different times. I am surprised that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be so distrustful of the future holders of that office. I can scarcely take it that he is distrustful of himself. I believe that would be going too far even for the present holder of this honourable office. But evidently he has little faith in the life of his own Government, and we can sympathise with him in that respect. He is afraid that when the five years elapse the Secretary of State of the time may be a man with broad and progressive ideas, concerned about the prosperity of the mass of the people of Scotland, and such a man might use the period of revision in a way which would be harmful to Tory interests. I asked the Secretary for Scotland to have more trust in the future holders of the office which he occupies temporarily—very temporarily. If the proposal in the Amendment does not meet the situation, the Government might offer some suggestion on their own part and bring it forward in that other place which is beloved by Tory Governments, so as to deal with what is evidently a point of importance.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I can hardly agree with the hon. Members on this side who have spoken on this matter, and I would like hon. Members to realise what the Amendment proposes to do. The Amendment says that these applications are to be made by
any association or body representing any class of lands and heritage set out in the First Schedule to this Act.
The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) constantly denounces amalgamations and such like. He prefers individual initiative, but in this Amendment he shuts out any individual from making an application under his proposal. Only groups or bodies or associations or trusts are to be allowed to apply for revision. This right is only to be granted to people who consolidate themselves into amalgamations or trusts and thus the proposal is a reversal of everything which the hon. and learned Member has argued in this House on other occasions. Furthermore, the Amendment states that these Orders are only to be made after an inquiry has been held by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. and learned Member does not suggest what kind of inquiry is to take place. I ask him to imagine himself as Secretary of State for Scotland—that will he beyond his happiest dreams. Supposing large groups or associations representing, say, the shale mineowners who think they are over-rated, or the steel smelters who think they are over-rated, or any of the other bodies who think they are over-rated come to the Secretary of State of Scotland and say, "We think the time has come for a readjustment of the abatement and an inquiry ought to be held." One cannot expect that the Secretary for Scotland himself is to hold such an inquiry but the Amendment presents no alternative. It does not say that such a request is to be remitted to the three persons who may hold inquiries into provisional orders. The poor Secretary for Scotland must do it himself and must neglect every other duty to hold these inquiries. The Secretary of State for Scotland has more official duties placed upon him than any other Member of the Government. He is Home Secretary, Education Minister and Health Minister and I have heard him described as the "Pooh Bab" of the present Government. Now the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire suggests
that he is to hold an inquiry of this kind when any association demands it. The proposal has only to be examined for three seconds in order to be laughed out of court.
When certain Members on this side express the view that the Amendment is a reasonable proposal they forget that it is a one-sided proposal. It only gives to associations who have interests in manufacturing processes or in lands and heritages the right to have such an inquiry. No such power is to be granted, for instance, to associations of ratepayers who are tenants of property. To limit the proposal in this way is altogether wrong. There are other bodies outside those specified in the First Schedule who may be equally concerned and who may have an equal right in this respect. I agree there is a case in favour of the view that five years would appear to be a reasonable period within which alterations might be made or some inquiry held but I think the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire came much nearer the mark in his earlier speech when he said that our whole incidence of taxation, our whole method of raising taxation, both land taxation and local Income Tax, all required review. The position will not be remedied by the Amendment, but by an inquiry into the whole rating system of Scotland. This proposal merely throws the responsibility on the Secretary for Scotland and allows this right only to certain big ratepayers, and I am surprised at Members on this side supporting it, because if these bodies get the adjustments for which they seek, other people who are not in those associations will have to pay for it.
I hope the Lord Advocate will continue to resist the Amendment which appears on the surface to have something to commend it. I can understand the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) being led away by it. That is due to his Christian charity. I can also understand the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) being deceived. I know how easy it is to be led away by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire, whom I have heard speaking before a jury and securing the acquittal of an accused man by his blandishments. The hon. and learned Member's North-Country accent lends itself to those blandishments, but
I hope the Lord Advocate, practised as he is in legal affairs, knowing and understanding criminals as he does after a long period in the Law Courts of Scotland, knowing lawyers as he does—even more intimately than I and my constituents know them, and we know them fairly well—will resist this Amendment and will not be troubled by the apparently united front presented in favour of it. I happen to be on his side on this particular occasion.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It strikes me that this Bill does not get down to the real question of the interest of the people and the proposal in the Amendment is really in favour of affording facilities to those who, in a collective capacity, can bring special influence to bear on the Government. It is gratifying to find the Lord Advocate opposing the Amendment, and I hope that he will be steadfast in his opposition, which is consistent with the general line he has taken on the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) is not so fond of applications to the electors, and we have in this Bill illustrations of one or two changes which have been made because of pressure brought to bear in the interest of capitalists, whereas other undertakings which have practical connection with control by public authorities are set aside. If there is to be any revision, it ought to be a revision of the whole concern.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 13.—(Provisions as to agricultural rates grant, 13 and 14 Geo, 5, c. 29.)

Amendments made.

In page 10, lire 27, leave out the word "authority," and insert instead thereof the word "authorities."

In page 10, line 42, leave out the words "for Scotland," and insert instead thereof the words "of State."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 14—(Provision as to valuation rofl, 17 and 18 Vict. 91; 3 Edw. 7, c. 33.)

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I beg to move, in page 12, line 11, to leave out from "1902 to the word "shall" in line 13.

This Amendment and the next Amendment deal with words which are found to be unnecessary after the proceedings in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 18, leave out the words "and the Acts amending the same."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 16.—(Consolidation, of rates.)

Amendment made: In page 14, line 40, leave out the word "exemption," and insert instead thereof the words "remission or relief."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 18.—(Fractions of a penny of rates.)

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move in page 15, line 32, after the word "collecting" to insert the words "the amount payable by a ratepayer in respect of."
This is a drafting Amendment and its object is to make it perfectly clear that it is riot the rate itself which is referred to, but the proportion of the rate paid by any ratepayer.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 20.—(Demand notes for rates.)

Amendments made: In page 16, line 13, leave out the word "thereof," and insert instead thereof the words "of the lands and heritages."—[Lieut.-Colonel Thom.]

In page 17, line 1, leave out the words "for Scotland," and insert instead thereof the words "of State."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 23.—(Consequential amendments of various Acts.)

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: I beg to move in page 18, line 13, at the end, to insert the words
The general meeting of a county council which is required by Sub-section (2) of Section seventy-three of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, to be held in the month of October, and at which, under Section seventy-one of the said Act, the annual budget of the county council is required to be submitted may, if the county council so determine, by passing a Resolution to that effect at a meeting of which due notice shall he given, be held on such day before the month of October as the county council may from time to time determine, and the provisions of the said Subsection and of the said Section seventy-one shall have effect accordingly.
7.0 P.M.
This Amendment has been suggested by the county council of Lanark, by the county councils of other counties and also by the County Councils Association of Scotland. I believe the Minister in charge has indicated his possible acceptance of this Amendment. It merely deals with the date of the meetings of the county council at which the annual budget is brought forward. According to the Statute, that meeting has now got to be held in October, and the county councils desire that the rates shall become payable in future in three instalments. That brings them rather too near the time of the 11th November, when the first instalment would be due. Therefore it has been considered that some elasticity should be given the county councils, and that by passing a Resolution they should have their budget meetings at an earlier date than October.

Mr. S. MITCHELL: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I understand the Secretary of State for Scotland has accepted this, although he does not say so. We should have some explanation. It strikes me as being peculiar how he agrees with the Lord Advocate in certain matters. A short while ago he was stating that this was merely a Rating Bill, and did not interfere with any other thing. Now he is going outwith what he has already said. This alteration carries the Bill a step beyond what was intended. It may be a very desirable step, but that is another matter. I have no great objection to the Amendment although I would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman some explanation of the scope of the Amendment and the effect of it on the Bill itself.

The LORD ADVOCATE: It is obviously for the benefit of a county council, if it is able, to have its Budget meeting earlier than the statutory day in October. At one time we proposed—I think it was in the original Bill—that it should be as early as 31st July. County councils at that time said they could not possibly make their date any earlier. Since the Committee stage, Lanarkshire County Council, as the leaders, have said that they have such an enormous number of notices to make out, that in view of the instalment system, which is to be in their option under the Bill, they would have to keep
the instalment dates too close together. If you have the instalment dates so close they are not instalments at all. It seems to me that is a matter of administrative machinery of which the county councils themselves are the best judges, and in this matter I think it is only right that a certain elasticity should be given to them. Therefore, as the county councils have asked for this, which is only an option to them to do it if they care, we see no reason for opposing what they ask.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 18, line 40, at the end, to insert the words
and any sum borrowed under the provisions of this Sub-section shall not be reckoned in any calculation as to the limit of the amount that may be borrowed under the foresaid statutory powers.
Perhaps I should explain that this Amendment is put down for the purpose of giving the county council the powers of borrowing sufficient money at a time to meet their liabilities. At the present time they are under certain limitations which do not apply to the borrowing powers of the burghs under similar conditions under the Burgh Police Act.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Amendment of s. 7 of 1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 53.)

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 19, line 19, after the word "not," to insert the words "able to be."
Our reason for this is—and I think it applies all over Scotland—that since the War there has been a very grevious shortage of houses. Yet you have had at times houses standing unlet. There have actually been owners not letting these places to people who wish to occupy them. This has happened not only in the case of houses but with offices and other property. One often sees in places like Glasgow offices and shops to let. During that period, according to the Bill as it now stands, although the factor or owner might be able to let it, he is not asked to pay any rates on that property, although his refusal to let it is depriving the city of just rates and throwing a burden on the ratepayers of increased rates because this property is not let when it could be let. I cannot see any reason why the Secretary of State for
Scotland or the Lord Advocate should not accept this Amendment. I could understand our opponents opposite refusing to accept an Amendment which declined to allow the owners any rebate on property that could not possibly be let. When there is no demand for that property, I could quite well understand the Secretary of State for Scotland saying it is unjust to the owners of the property for any person to compel them to pay rates because they cannot let the property. In this case it is a totally different thing. We are saying "Where it can be let." That is the only case in which we ask that rates should be paid.
On the outskirts of Glasgow—in Pollokshields for instance—it is quite common to see notices "House to be Sold." The owner could let the house, but rather than let it he chooses to put up a notice "House to be Sold." Under the Bill, as it now stands, the owner, although he could let the property and be the means of raising rates for the city, chooses to keep the house unoccupied and is not asked to pay any rates. The Lord Advocate and even the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) must agree with this. In a previous speech he said that property like houses do not need the same police protection as moveable property. I am not going to dispute that. What I say is, that an unoccupied house needs more protection than an occupied house. When I was a boy in Glasgow we were delighted if we could enter an empty house, and we did things we should not have done. The police had to be constantly supervising empty houses and shops. In the old days, before the house shortage in Glasgow, owners of property, rather than let a house go empty, would give to it a reduced rent because they recognised that property occupied was better looked after and better preserved. Unlet property throws on the police an extra burden. A ease might be made out where they cannot get rid of the property. What we are asking is, where they can let the property they aught to pay the rates just the same as if it were let. Why should they get all the police protection and not be asked to pay their quota towards town or county taxation? I think this is a reasonable Amendment.
My notice was drawn to a case the other day in the centre of Glasgow of an
unlet office. A gentleman in the legal profession went to try to take the office. He was prepared to pay the rent and show a bank gaurantee. For some unknown reason, possibly it was because of his political convictions, which were the same as mine, the factor said, "I am not going to let this office. I am prepared rather than let it to a person of political opinions with which I do not agree to have it stand empty." Actually, in the centre of Glasgow an office upon which a rent could be paid and taxation to the city secured is standing empty because the owner or the factor on behalf of the owner refuses to let it because of a particular political conviction. Here we are with cases of people refusing to let property and depriving the city of rates and we are saying they should not have any responsibility for rates. Here is a common experience in Glasgow. Very often adjacent to empty houses or shops are occupied houses or shops. The police have constantly to watch the empty house or shop because it is very often used by burglars as a means of making an entry into occupied dwellings or shops. The police have to watch the empty shop far more than the shop which is used because of people wishing to use them for access to other shops. I hope the Lord Advocate will remember that there are still some few Opposition Members from Scotland in this House and that we are entitled to at least some concessions of a reasonable kind on this Bill. I do not want him to depart from his political principles, but I do ask him to give us on this side the fairness which I am sure he has given to his own friends on other matters.

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so, I would like to draw attention once more to the lack of essential justice. I am always getting back to that phrase. Every time that in the City of Glasgow or elsewhere public money makes an improvement which enhances the value of these subjects that are let for rent, and every time that we spend public money and increase these values, not only are those who own the property ready to take all the value created by the socially spent wealth, but they are ready to say that since they do not require to pay rates on a subject that is not let, they will let the property
stand empty until necessity compels their acceptance of a rent. It all comes back to this, that if a community spends the money of the whole of the citizens in order to improve local conditions, why should two advantages accrue to the holder of what is called property? He first gets the advantage of an enhanced value through the expenditure of public money, and then he gets, by this Bill, a right to withhold the letting of a place because he is not compelled to pay rates on it while unlet. If we were saying that where an individual had unlet property the rate ought to he trebled, we should be nearer doing what is just and fair in the conditions in regard to housing that prevail to-day.
In Glasgow and in other cities we have been spending huge sums of public money in making roads, and just as soon as those roads are made, up go property values, but instead of our putting a rate upon the owners of houses to compel them to have their houses occupied, we say we will not compel them to act as other people are compelled to do in similar circumstances. Men who own other things are compelled to do something in order to get money in certain respects, but here, because this is property, the god of the Tory party, while we have people going without houses in Glasgow and four or five families living in one house, we have a Government that encourages the holding up of empty houses by saying that the owners of them need not be asked to pay rates on unlet property. Is there anything more unjust than that? I cannot think of anything more cruel to people requiring houses, who cannot afford to buy, but who can afford to pay rent, and yet the Government dare to come forward and protect still further this god of theirs. They ought to say: "The conditions are such that we must see the people housed, and if you are, not going to let this house, we are going to treble the rates upon you, because we must have some way of compelling you to bear your fair share of the expenditure of the city." It is of no use saying that property that is unlet does not require police supervision. It requires more supervision, and why should it be exempt from any portion of the rates? In the constituency of one of the occupants of the Treasury Bench, the Government are prepared to give these immoral rights to so-called owners and to
use the rates of the poor people to pay the rates of the rich, and I ask that member of the Government to consider his position, because before long he will be down there facing the music.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment. The purpose of this Clause, which deals only with and affects only houses under the House Letting and Rating Act, 1911, is to make clear a doubt which arose as to whether, if an owner who by that Act was forced to collect the tenant's or occupier's assessments, got a partial payment, it might have been claimed that he was bound to treat the whole of it as rates and was not entitled to split it proportionately into rates and rent in the proportions which those two subjects bore to each other. All that this Clause does is to make clear that any partial payment shall be appropriated in proportion, as it really ought to be. The particular part of this substituted Subsection to which this Amendment relates reproduces the old provisions of the Act of 1911. As I said, this Clause only affects houses under the House Letting and Rating Act, and the owner of any unoccupied house in Glasgow, or elsewhere in burghs, is not liable for occupier's assessments except under this Act. Why, because you collect the occupier's assessments compulsorily under this Act through the owner, are you to make him liable for an occupier's assessment which would not otherwise be payable under the general law operating in the burghs? I quite appreciate such arguments, however irrelevant to the scope of the present discussion, as to the taxation of land values, to which the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) has referred, and I quite appreciate arguments as to whether owners ought to be forced to let houses, at whatever rent may be fixed, or that some Court should fix it or not, but this is not the means by which that can be done. It would be quite inappropriate and also ineffective, and, if I understand the hon. Members' arguments correctly, it would not touch the type of houses which they have in their minds, and it would certainly have only a very limited operation. For these reasons, the Government is opposed to the Amendment.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: While I recognise the difficulty which the Lord
Advocate has in acknowledging the relevancy of the Amendment to this particular Clause, it is time to emphasise such a striking anomaly as exists under the present housing conditions in our cities. The Government have a powerful enough majority to have gripped this kind of thing if they had had the disposition, and we can only urge the importance on the Government and on the whole House of seeing to these things, when we have empty houses that ought to be made available at the present time for the necessities of those who are having to get wooden houses, steel houses and ail sorts of houses. Then again, from the taxation point of view in itself, it is a very striking anomaly. I think it. right, therefore, at this juncture that we should emphasise these questions.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am surprised at the Lord Advocate declining to accept the Amendment merely upon the ground that this particular Clause refers to houses under the House Letting and Rating Act. In Sub-section (3) he will find how closely the words proposed to be inserted deal with the question which the Mover of the Amendment sought to bring to his attention. I shall not seek to apply the principles of the taxation of land values to this question, but I want to deal, purely and simply from the point of view of the occupiers of houses, with the question of a house which is not let for a certain period of the year. The Sub-section as it stands in the Bill deals, as the Lord Advocate says, with a period of the year when a particular house may be vacant, and although the owner or estate agent or factor may have received certain payments, which would include a certain proportion of the rates for a part of the year, still he would or might be expected to pay the rates for the entire year. Bat the Lord Advocate has to bear in mind that this Sub-section deals with houses vacant, not for an entire year, but for a portion of the year, and consequently it may seem a little more complicated than where a house has been vacant for an entire year. I, like my colleagues, represent a constituency where houses are small, and rents are paid sometimes weekly and sometimes monthly, where a house can be easily vacated by a tenant, and where the pro-
portion of the rates collected by the factor may not be in sufficiently large amount, even for a monthly let, to enable him to pay the whole of the occupier's rates for the entire year.
The right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that the house factors in Glasgow and the owners in Glasgow take up a certain line with regard to applicants for vacant houses. A house may have been occupied for three months of the year, and three months' rates may have been paid by the outgoing tenant. The house may have been vacant for a couple of months, when another individual makes application, one who in normal circumstances would be thought a perfectly reasonable tenant. But we know, and the Secretary for Scotland knows, perfectly well there are certain factors who prefer that houses should remain vacant for months, rather than that they should he left to certain individuals to whom they take exception. You may have the case of certain agents who refuse to allow people to have vacant houses unless they are prepared to pay £2, £3, or £5 for the key, and who hold the house vacant for a month, or even three months, until a tenant comes along who is willing and able to pay what is called key-money to obtain the house.
All that this Amendment seeks to do is that where such an estate agent or factor refuses to let a house, and holds up a house for key money, or prefers that the house should remain vacant until he gets the kind of tenant he thinks suitable to him, the owner shall, during the months which the house has been kept vacant because of his refusal to let it, be required to pay the occupiers' rates for that particular period. Surely that is no very great hardship on the owners. Surely it is not asking any great thing of this Government that they should require that where a house owner or factor deliberately refuses to let a house to a tenant, he shall be required to pay the rates of that house during the period that the house remains vacant. That is all we ask the Lord Advocate to do. If it seeks to do other than that, he ought to have told the House where my hon. Friends erred in their Amendment. He has not done so, and I can only conclude that my interpretation is the correct one, and his is the wrong one. I hope he will see that something is done to compel the indi-
vidual who holds out against the letting of a house to pay the rates during the time that the house is vacant.

Mr. STEPHEN: I think this Amendment is a much more important Amendment than the Lord Advocate seemed to think. He said that the houses we had in mind were, possibly, some of those large houses which were once occupied by well-to-do people, but which, in many cases, are not occupied to-day, and that we thought those houses should have to pay an occupier's rate, and that there might be a hope of getting working-class people in them. We did not make that assumption. It is true we do think there is gross injustice, in view of the housing conditions in our big cities, that such houses are often allowed to remain unoccupied. But the primary reason for our putting down this Amendment was to endeavour to secure protection for those small householders for whom the House-Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, was passed. In my own division, on more than one occasion, I have had people coming to me and telling me about the desperate circumstances in which they were placed. There were, possibly, nine of them in a single apartment, and they knew of a room-and-kitchen house to let. Yet the property owner or the factor would not let the house. The reason they gave was that there had been left on the house a debt charge by the previous tenant, who had possibly gone away without paying his rent, and unless the person proposing to become a tenant was willing to take over and pay the amount of rent outstanding, he would not get the house. I have spoken to the Lord Advocate about this matter privately on more than one occasion. There is always the difficulty which he has to face of netting evidence which will allow him to take action in connection with the factor. I admit there is that difficulty, but I submit that by means of this Amendment, which will only apply to those small houses which come under the 1911 Act, we shall give protection to these people. I think the Lord Advocate will agree with me that this Amendment would only apply to the small houses under the 1911 Act, and if the Government could see their way to accept this Amendment, it would mean that so much Protection would be given to these people.
I want also to stress the point with regard to houses standing empty for a certain time. The Lord Advocate seemed to consider it an injustice that the property owner should be called upon to pay an occupier's rate for the house during the period that it was standing empty. But when you set the terrible housing conditions in some districts in Scotland against the possibility of an injustice to certain property owners, I think there is very great reason indeed why this Amendment should be accepted. The small houses which are covered by this Amendment will not stand empty if the property owner is a decent man. The need for houses in our Scottish towns and cities is so great that no decent property owner can fail to let his house immediately, in view of the large demand there is for this type of house. Consequently, the only people who would really be adversely affected by this Amendment are those property owners or factors who are not playing the game as far as the House Letting Acts are concerned, but are trying by one means or other to get key-money or payments to which they are not entitled.
It seems to me, on the Lord Advocate's own showing, that the small houses under the 1911 Act are the only houses that will be dealt with under this Amendment. I have also put it to him that there is this great dearth of houses in our towns and cities, and that every decent property owner can let his house within 24 hours without any difficulty. Consequently, the property owners who might be prejudiced by the acceptance of this Amendment are property owners who are not disposed to play the game with the working people in those districts, and are not prepared to let the houses without some illegality in regard to key money and payments, though it is difficult to catch them and to convict them. Consequently, on behalf of all these poor people, I do press upon the Government to accept this Amendment, and give us something that will afford a certain measure of protection, not against the decent factors or the decent property owners, but against those rapacious wretches who pray upon the poverty of the people, and use the terrible needs of the people in order to try to extort a little more out of the miserable houses which they let.
I do hope the Government will meet us to some extent in regard to this Amendment, or even consider the possibility in other place of putting in something in order to make it more difficult for that section of property owners or factors to take these illegal payments. If the Government would give us some such assurance as that, we would be satisfied, but we do think that there should be some concession from the Government, that something should be done to afford a measure of protection to these poor tenants against that section of property owners or factors who are not playing the game with the poor people.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I would appeal to the Lord Advocate to accept this Amendment. Some time ago we had power to compel people who in a time of need were keeping houses empty to do something. The Members of the Tory party may think we are pressing this matter a little too much, but I would assure them that the stories which have been told here do not apply to the cities only. There are people, who are not friends of the Tory party, any more than they are friends of the Labour party, who keep houses empty, it may be in order to try to get a particular tenant, and I wish the House to understand the kind of tenant they want to get. A man with a big family does not suit the factor. What he wants is to secure as tenants a young married couple or people with no encumbrances, and while the house is kept empty other ratepayers are suffering; and all the time the Government are being asked to speed up house-building in order to meet a want which could be satisfied if only existing houses were let. I hope the Lord Advocate, who knows the conditions as well as we do, will accept this Amendment, which will do no harm to anybody, because it is only in cases where a house is wilfully kept empty that the rates will have to be paid. If it can be proved that the owner is unable to let the house, the Amendment will not apply.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I sincerely trust we shall have some reply to the arguments which have been submitted. Where a house is being deliberately kept out of the market to suit the purpose of the
landlord, in obtaining a particular type of tenant, no one, surely, can justify a system which involves the other ratepayers in additional burdens. I would point out also that this additional charge will have to be borne by the tenants, because no share is to be paid by the owners. The whole Bill seems to be drafted for the purpose of putting the largest burden possible on householders, instead of trying to share the burdens equally.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I have already replied to the arguments of hon. Members, and so far as I have heard their speeches, no fresh argument has been adduced, although the points may have been put in a different way and somewhat more forcibly, in some instances, by some of the later speakers. The only thing I want to add is this—the wording of the Amendment would raise very great difficulties, and it would be quite impossible to enforce it. Who is going to settle whether it is possible to let a place or not?

Mr. HARDIE: The local authorities are doing that now.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Oh, no.

Mr. HARDIE: The sanitary authority in Glasgow does it.

The LORD ADVOCATE: As I have already explained, I do not see how we can insert a wide provision of this kind in a Clause which is merely introducing a slight amendment in the class of houses which are under the Act of 1911, and I am afraid I cannot accept it.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does not this particular section of the Bill before the House alter the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911? Surely, therefore, when we are amending that particular Act we can go still further and confer wider powers upon the authorities.

Mr. HARDIE: May I ask the Lord Advocate what is the authority in Edinburgh or in Glasgow which determines that a house shall not be occupied when it is unfit for habitation? He has said there is no authority. I say there is.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 162.

Division No. 502.]
AYES.
[7.52 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock}
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Amman, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr, J.
Hudson, J, H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, J.


Charleton, H, C.
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Neit (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D.
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.



Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purcell, A. A.
Henderson.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Balniel, Lord
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Albery, Irving James
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Berry, Sir George
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Burman, J. B.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Blundell, F. N.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Atholl, Duchess of
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Campbell, E. T.


Atkinson, C.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Chapman, Sir S.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Remnant, Sir James


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rentoul, G. S.


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiten'n)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ropner, Major L.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hurd, Percy A.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Isllngtn, N.)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Rye, F. G.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jacob, A. E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Savery, S. S.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Skelton, A. N.


Eden, Captain Anthony
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smithers, Waldron


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Ellis, R. G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lougher, L.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Storry-Deans, R.


Fielden, E. B.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Finburgh, S.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Ford, Sir P. J.
MacIntyre, Ian
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Forrest, W.
McLean, Major A.
Templeton, W. P.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Macquisten, F. A.
Tinne, J. A.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Globs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Merriman, F. B.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Bt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Grace, John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wells, S. R.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Murchison, C. K.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hanbury, C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Haslam, Henry C
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
withers, John James


Hawke, John Anthony
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Penny, Frederick George
Womersley, W. J.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)



Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Major Cope and Mr. F. C. Thomson.

Amendment made: In page 19, line 34, leave out the word "assessment," and insert instead thereof the word "assessments."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir J. GILMOUR:
In page 19, line 42, at end, insert—
(2) Sub-section (6) of Section seven of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911 (which relates to the deduction to cover cost of collection to be allowed to owners from occupiers' rates levied and recovered from the owners), shall have effect as respects occupiers' rates paid for a period after the commencement of this Act subject to the following Amendments:

(a) The words 'In the City of Glasgow two pounds ten shillings per centum; and elsewhere,' and the words 'Except in the City of Glasgow' shall he omitted; and
(b) The words 'five pounds' shall be substituted for the words 'two pounds ten shillings' wherever they occur."

8.0 P.M.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: On a point of Order. Regarding this proposal of the
Government, I desire to have the ruling of the Chair on this Amendment. This proposal provides for an increase of the allowance to owners to cover the cost of collection of rates of the tenants from 2 per cent. to 5 per cent. In our judgment it is perfectly clear that that could only be done by increasing the charge to the great masses of other people who have to contribute to the total produce of the rates. If that be correct, then I submit that this Amendment is out of order in view of a ruling which was given at an earlier stage of the Bill, Sir, by your predecessor in the Chair. That ruling, as we understand it, given by Mr. Deputy-Speaker, said that the Government must recommit that part of the Bill if there were variations in the incidence of the rate. I venture to submit that, at the very least, this proposal is a variation in the incidence of the rate, and accordingly it would be covered by the ruling given by your predecessor. But I take the view
also that this is rather more than that, and is, in fact, an increase of the charge for a very considerable section of the people and therefore the Government must, in order to comply with the ruling already given, recommit this part of the Bill.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I submit that this Amendment is in order. In the first place it is clear that it has nothing to do with the incidence of the rate at all. The question here is for the owner who collects on behalf of the Corporation of Glasgow, shall we say, the occupiers' rates. It is a question of what commission he is to be allowed to keep for that collection. It is not a question of the amount of the rate at all. I agree that it is a question which may deal with the net amount involved, but it is not a question of the increase affecting directly the people concerned with the rate.

Mr. GRAHAM: May I submit on that point that the Lord Advocate has conceded my case as to variation of incidence? I leave it respectfully to the Chair to say if this Clause must be recommitted.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to submit that in regard to Glasgow this Amendment would mean an increased payment of £22,000 and would therefore necessarily involve an increase in the rate and on the ruling given by Mr. Deputy-Speaker earlier in the afternoon—and that ruling was given on a Clause which the Lord Advocate said was in order but which was ruled out of order on precisely the same grounds—I submit that this Clause is out of order.

The LORD ADVOCATE: May I say a word on that point to make perfectly clear what this Amendment really is? The effect of this Amendment is to secure that the owners who collect on behalf of the Government shall get nothing more than its costs them, they shall not get a bonus. In other words, they really are acting as the servants of the corporation, in the case I have put, for collecting this money, and the object of this Amendment is not to give the owners anything at all; it is simply to reimburse them for the task they do on behalf of the corporation. It is true that if the actual cost amounted to the 5 per cent., the figure involved would be something like £22,000, but the Amendment, as framed, provides for something not ex-
ceeding 5 per cent. It is only a question whether the work is done by the owner or by a servant in the rate collectors' office. It is a question of ordinary current expenditure, and I submit that this Amendment is not out of order.

Mr. STEPHEN: On that point, I submit respectfully that the Lord Advocate is quite wrong in submitting that this is a definite amount which is simply the cost of the expenditure on the part of these people. There is a commission that is charged by the factors in this collection. There is this additional charge being made upon the people, and it will mean an increase in the rates in the City of Glasgow.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): This is rather a technical point, but as far as I can make out from what the Lord Advocate has said there is no direct charge on the rates by this particular Amendment, but, at the same time, no doubt the effect of this Amendment would be to relieve the burden on one portion of the ratepayers and to inflict a heavier burden on another portion of the ratepayers, which obviously could not be done on the Report stage of the Bill.

CLAUSE 25.—(Transfer of existing officers.)

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move in page 20, line 5, after the word "rates," to insert the words
and who at the commencement of this Act is still so employed by the parish council.
This Amendment is to make clear what I think is clearly embodied in the Clause already, but since the Committee stage it was suggested to us that, as there was some doubt as to the way in which this transfer was to operate, we should make the matter quite clear and therefore we propose the addition of these words so as to put the matter beyond doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move in page 20, line 33, to leave out from the word "to" to the word "where," in line 37, and to insert instead thereof the words
compensation in respect of loss of superannuation rights under the scheme for the period of his service prior to transfer to the rating authority so, however, that, if
the rating authority subsequently adopt or institute a superannuation scheme, such officer shall not, for the purposes of that scheme, be entitled to have account taken of any period of service in respect of which he has received compensation under this proviso unless within six months of the scheme being so adopted or instituted he repays to the rating authority the sum paid as compensation under this proviso, without interest; and, on payment of such compensation by the rating authority, the parish council shall, out of their superannuation fund, pay to the rating authority the sum in respect of return of contributions with interest which would, under Section ten of the Local Government and other Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922, have been payable to the officer if that Section had applied in his case; and
(ii).
This Amendment, and practically the whole of the subsequent Amendments on this Clause, are the result of an undertaking which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) to reconsider certain proposals which he made in the Committee stage on behalf, mainly, I think, of the National Association of Local Government Officers. I have been in touch with the right hon. Gentleman since, and, so far as I was able to agree with him, the result is put in these Amendments, of which this is the first. The main thing that we have made clear now under this Amendment, for instance, is that, where an officer who is already subject to a superannuation scheme is transferred to a rating authority who have no scheme, he would get, under the Bill as it stands, the return of his contributions, but if the rating authority to whom he is gone subsequently adopted a scheme, we provide that he is to come into that scheme, if he chooses, on the condition of repaying the amount which he has already got at the time of the transfer. He can come in if he wishes to do it, and the parish council, the first body, is bound to pay to the second body to whom the officer is transferred, towards compensation, the contribution they had received under the old scheme. That is the effect of this Clause coupled with this Amendment. It is rather complicated, and it would take a long time to explain in any detail.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: May I at once acknowledge the very great care which the Lord Advocate has taken in dealing with the difficult portion of the Bill,
and I think we can agree that probably our doubts would be removed by a simple statement on the proposal now before the House. The Lord Advocate referred, of course, to the position of transfer values under these superannuation schemes where the local government officer transfers from one local authority to the new rating authority under this Bill. If I may anticipate a very little to make the matter easier there are really two points in this second Sub-section of the Clause now under consideration. The first provides for the transfer value and then, towards the end, on the second Sub-section there is a reference to these officers having the benefit of the provision of the Local Government and other Officers Superannuation Act, 1922, and in particular Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of that Act. Some critics read the Clause as it appears in the Bill as if they thought it tended to exclude the general provision of the Act of 1922. That matter can be quite clearly explained when it is remembered that the Act of 1922 is purely permissive in character. In Section 16 of that Act there is a provision under which the local authority may give an allowance in respect of non-contributing service, that is, the service in which there is no contribution for the purpose of superannuation, and in Subsection (1) of Section 16 there is also another arrangement under which, by Resolution, the local authority may agree to give an allowance up to one-sixtieth for each year's service rather than 1/120th. The doubt which arose was whether the Clause as framed covered these rights comprehensively, namely, the right of transfer value, and in the second place, the right of consideration of non-contributing service as embodied in Section 16 of the Act of 1922. I have refrained, however, from putting down any Amendment, because it appears to me to be unnecessary, but outside these walls there remains some anxiety on the part of local government officials, and I think they would be perfectly satisfied if the Government felt able to make a statement to the effect that this Clause as it stands is comprehensive in character, that it provides for that transfer value under Section 8, but that it also includes every benefit and, in particular, that benefit for non-contributing service under Section 16 and the other
provisions of that legislation. If the Lord Advocate felt able to make that statement all doubt would disappear.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has interpreted the Clause correctly. The purpose of this Clause is to deal not only with those who are contributors but with the others who have passed the age of 65 and have ceased to be contributors, and where the authority has passed Resolutions that they cease to be contributors. Some anxiety has been expressed as to whether that class is covered by the Bill, but the next Amendment makes it clear that they are included.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 5, at the end, insert the words "whether the transferred officer was a contributor or not."—[The Lord Advocate.]

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 21, line 22, at the end, to insert the words
(6) Any transferred officer whose services are dispensed with, or whose salary is reduced by the rating authority within five years after the commencement of this Acv because his services are not required or his duties are diminished, and not on the ground of misconduct, shall be entitled to compensation unless it is proved that the pecuniary loss suffered has not arisen in consequence of this Act.
These words are proposed simply to bring this Measure into line with the English Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 26, leave out from the word "a" to the word "who" in line 28, and insert instead thereof the words "rating authority."—The Lord Advocate.]

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 21, line 30, after the word "office" to insert the words "or by determination of his appointment."
These words are proposed because there might be a difficulty where the office is not abolished but determined or terminated. Where the bolder of an office can prove that its termination is directly due to the Act it would not be fair that he should not have compensation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 22, line 9, after the word "compensation," insert the words
in respect of his employment in connection with the collection of rates leviable by the county council in a police burgh.

In line 10, leave out from the word "burgh," to the end of the Sub-section.

In line 12, at the end, insert the words "and
(ii) in the case of compensation payable to a transferred officer under proviso (i) to Sub-section (2) of this Section the rating authority to whom the officer is transferred shall be the principal rating authority whether or not the gross annual valuation of their area within the parish exceeds that of any other rating authority, and in ascertaining the proportions of such compensation repayable to that authority by other rating authorities account shall be taken of the sum payable to that authority by the parish council under the said proviso."—[The Lord Advocate.]

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move in page 22, line 17, to leave out Sub-section (9).
This Sub-section was inserted in Committee in this Clause, but it has been decided that it would be more appropriate that it should be inserted in the Schedule, and this will be done by a later Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 22, line 30, leave out the words "for Scotland", and insert instead thereof the words "of State." —[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 26.—(Interpretation.)

Amendments made:
In page 23, line 31, leave out the words "and the Acts amending that Act.

In line 32, at the end, insert the words
the expression 'owner' in the case of a burgh has the meaning assigned to it in the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and in the case of a county has the meaning assigned to it in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.

In page 24, line 14, leave out the words "subject to", and insert instead thereof the words "after the."

In line 14, after the word "of" insert the words "an amount representing."

In line 26, at the end, insert the words
except that for the purpose of any apportionment between rating authorities the
rateable valuation of the area of a rating authority shall be ascertained as if the rateable value of agricultural lands and heritages therein were one-half of the gross annual value thereof.

In line 32, leave out the word "references" and insert the word "reference."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Deductions from gross annual value of certain classes of lands and heritages for the purpose of rates.)

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move in page 27, line 19, column 1, to leave out from the word "heritages," to the end of line 25, and to insert instead thereof the words
belonging to or leased by a tramway company or local authority, and valued by the assessor of railways and canals as part of the tramway undertaking of such company or authority.
This Amendment is moved because we desire that the Schedule in regard to railways should be followed as closely as possible.

Captain BENN: Do I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are now putting an Amendment in line 19?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is so.

Captain BENN: May I point out that I have an Amendment on the Paper which comes in line 8?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That Amendment comes under the same ruling which has been previously given and it cannot be moved at this stage of the Bill.

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. I have necessarily been absent for some few moments from the House, but I have attended the proceedings throughout the Debate. May I ask you for a specific ruling on my Amendment, in line 8, column 2, to leave out "Twenty" and insert "Twenty-five"? May I submit to you, Sir, that while the Rule says that on the Report stage of any Bill it shall not be competent to move an Amendment which increases the charge upon the subject, this Amendment does nothing of the kind? It reduces the charge upon the subject—in this case the harbour undertaking. I submit, with great respect, that the Rule in regard to the Report stage is against an increase, and
should not be applied to an Amendment which is designed to secure a reduction.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: In this case it would secure a reduction in one case and put on an increase in another. I cannot go back on the previous rulings in which this point has already been dealt with.

Captain BENN: Are we not entitled, if we are in our places, to move our own Amendments, or must we be governed necessarily by a ruling given on some earlier Amendment? I submit, with great respect, but, I if may, with emphasis, that the Rule against imposing a charge has never hitherto been interpreted in so general a way. It may or may not be—I do not know—that by-increasing this percentage a charge may be laid upon someone; but, in the case of the persons concerned, it certainly does not impose an additional charge, but reduces the charge. I submit that to rule in a general sense that it must necessarily although I do not know whether it may, impose a charge on other people, is an extension of the Rule which would seriously curtail the possibilities of useful debate on Amendments during the Report stage of a Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot at this stage go back on the rulings that have been given. The same ruling which was given on the previous Amendments affects this one.

Captain BENN: Surely, a Member in charge of an Amendment is entitled to argue the merits of his Amendment? I am well aware that some Government Amendments were ruled out on the ground that they imposed a charge. If, indeed, this Amendment imposed a charge, it would not be necessary to base a ruling upon an earlier Amendment, but to base it on the general Rule with regard to Amendments imposing a charge; but I most urgently submit to you, Sir, that this Amendment does not impose a charge, hut reduces the charge.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: On the same point of order. The last Government Amendment that \vas ruled out was a proposal to increase the allowance to a house factor to 5 per cent., which necessarily must impose a charge. This is a totally different matter, and I submit that the former rulings do not
cover this case at all. It is precedent run mad to hold that the previous rulings, which had no connection with this case, and each of which involved a different point, must cover this case. As the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) has said, it is a perfect tragedy if, a thing of this kind having been once asserted, the House is to be deprived of the opportunity of discussing and voting upon a particular Amendment. It is a very big restriction of the liberty of the House.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: On the same point of Order. I submit that the Amendment. standing in my name is also on the same footing.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This discussion and raising of points of Order is quite out of order at this stage of the Bill. A ruling has already been given, and the Amendment of the Secretary of State for Scotland has already been put before the House. This matter can only be raised again at a later stage.

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. I submit that I did raise the matter immediately, and I certainly did not understand clearly what the ruling was. I did not let the opportunity slip, but raised the question the moment you rose to put the Amendment of the Secretary of State for Scotland on a later line. I would submit, in further support of the argument I am addressing to you, the case, for example, of the Report stage of taxing Resolutions. There is no doubt that, in as much as a certain amount of money has to be raised, if a reduction is moved in a particular tax it must necessarily, by inference, impose a burden on other taxpayers; but that is never held to be out of order on the Report stage, because specifically it reduces, and does not increase, the charge. I urge the same point on behalf of this Amendment.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Further on the point of order. May I point out that the Amendment on which you gave your previous ruling was to raise a charge of 2½ per cent. to a possible 5 per cent. so far as certain outlays were concerned, and necessarily, if you increase 2½ per cent. to 5 per cent. for outlays, that would place a, burden on the other ratepayers. In this case, however, the same rule does not apply, because no charge is being increased.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I ask if the ruling you have now given is to apply to a subsequent Amendment standing in the name of the other Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) and myself? I submit to you that that Amendment is on an entirely different footing from the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn). Different arguments can be adduced in support of it, and it does not have anything like the same effect upon the general incidence as the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith.

Lieut.-Colonel THOM: Further on the point of order. May I point out that the cardinal principle, which has been enunciated again and again by the Lord Advocate in the proceedings in connection with this Bill, is that the status quo in Scotland, so far as rating is concerned, is to be preserved? This Amendment is designed to enforce that principle; it is designed to ensure that no person in Scotland shall be charged any less rates or any more rates than at the present moment. In no sense is it an Amendment which will result either in an increase or in a decrease of taxation so far as any citizen of the country is concerned.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is quite clear that we cannot have several different rulings on the same point. Whether these different Amendments have the effect of putting a charge on the ratepayers is not the point at issue; the question is that some may be relieved and a further charge may be put on someone else. If these questions are to be raised, they must be raised during the Committee stage, and not on Report.

Captain BENN: I submit that the ruling previously given was not at all in pari.materia with this particular case. It was on a different Amendment and a different case. I further submit I hat it is not a Rule of the House that a re-distribution of charges cannot be discussed on Report. I submit that the Rule of the House is that no increase of charge may be imposed on report, and that that Rule should not be interpreted to mean that no redistribution of charges can be discussed.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The point was raised in Committee, and the Committee consisted of a limited number of
members. This is the whole House, and, if the whole House is not given an opportunity of dealing with a point which was dealt with by the Committee, it is a Closure on the whole House, and a preference is given to the Committee, which is only a section of the House.

The LORD ADVOCATE: May I point out that the first Amendment on which a ruling of this nature was given was on page 9, line 14, at the end—to insert
or to that given by the proviso to Section two hundred and sixty-seven of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, or the proviso to Section two of the Burgh Sewerage, Drainage, and Water Supply (Scotland) Act, 1901, which provisos are repealed by this Act—
and the ground, as I understood that ruling, was that it was an attempt, on the Report stage, to alter the relief to which certain parties are entitled by Statute at present as regards their water rates. Every alteration of relief in one direction necessarily increases the burden in another. The proposal of the Amendment on which these points of Order are now being raised is to increase the relief given in certain cases, with the result that the burden will necessarily be heavier on other people; and also, in consequence, the total rateable annual value will be reduced, and a further burden will he needed in the matter of rates.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I point out that already the point has been decided—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no object in putting the same point over and over again.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have a different point; it is a new point.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have had the point put to me several times, and have said the same thing over and over again. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) himself almost took the words out my mouth when he said that this was a redistribution. It can have but one effect, namely, to take the burden from someone and put it on to someone else. That is the whole reason for the ruling I have given on these various Amendments. Anything of that nature must be done during the Committee stage of the Bill, and not during the Report stage.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I should like your answer, Sir, to the question I put with reference to the Amendment in the name of the two hon. Members for Dundee. Already to-night a variation has been given in the case of Greenock by the Lord Advocate, with the consent of Mr. Speaker, and I submit that there are Amendments on the Paper on quite the same footing designed to secure exactly the same variation as was given to Greenock. On the Committee stage only a limited number of Members can take part, and here we are now faced with this situation, and if your ruling is held as you have given it, a large number of Members will have no opportunity whatever of varying the Schedule.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The Lord Advocate, advanced, in answer to a question, that the difference would be inappreciable but he would not define how much. The admission was therefore made that a change has been already established in the Bill, and we hold that the same claim can be made for the submission of this Amendment.

Captain BENN: In reference to the Leith case on which you base your ruling, the case of the Clause which was withdrawn by the Lord Advocate, he himself told you just now that that was a proposal to increase the charge in respect of a water rate on a certain class of taxpayer, and it is on that narrow ground that the Amendment was ruled out of order. This is an Amendment to reduce a charge, and I submit that these matters must he decided on a specific ground and not on some general ground that any redistribution is bound to have certain effects.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot agree that this matter must be considered on a specific ground not upon a general one, but whatever effect the Amendment might have, it might increase the charge on some ratepayers.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I ask for your ruling on the point I raised? I do not wish it to be mixed up with the others. The Lord Advocate has given a variation in the case of Greenock. I specifically asked if that meant a financial variation. He answered, "Yes, for five years, but only for an immaterial amount." Therefore, to that extent a
variation has been permitted, and I submit that subsequent Amendments ask for a similar variation as that accorded to Greenock. I ask for your ruling on that point.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: On page 2111, you see an Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dumbartonshire (Lieut.-Colonel Thom) asking that a reduction of 10 per cent. should be given. It is the very same point as this except that the sum is double, and it was restricted to five years. That was accepted by the Speaker and by the Lord Advocate. How can we go back on that precedent? The policy of consistency is to take the precedent of the Greenock case and not the others.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I should be extremely inconsistent if I gave different rulings on the same point in the course of half an hour.

Captain BENN: In that ease might I ask you, Sir, whether in view of the obvious hardship which is being inflicted, especially upon Scottish Members, you will be prepared, at the conclusion of the Report stage, to accept a Motion that the Bill be recommitted, to the whole House if necessary, so that we may ourselves move these Amendments then?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a, matter for the Government to decide, and cannot at this stage be moved by a private Member.

Captain BENN: Would you accept a Motion from me, for example?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I could not do that at this stage.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I have already asked you, Sir, a question on a, specific point. I submit that the City of Greenock has had a variation permitted to it. I ask on what ground Dundee is to be refused?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dundee must submit to the general ruling I have given.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I submit that the House has already allowed a variation so far as Greenock Harbour is concerned. I ask you, Sir, for a statement as to why it is that, asking for an infinitesimal part of the variation which has been permitted to Greenock, we should be forbidden to move our Amendment.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I did not really argue the point that is being pressed by
my colleague. It is established and agreed that such a step should be taken, and we submit that the allowance should be made either now or at some other stage.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think I have disposed of that point already.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Am I then to understand that there is to be no reason given why one city gets a variation and another is refused?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a question for me to answer.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
I do so in order that further consideration may be given to the point.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to second the Motion.

Captain BENN: I do not know if the Government intend to speak on this, but if not, I should like to take advantage of the question being put to raise one or two matters. Obviously, very great difficulties are arising. In the Committee, as the Government well know, it was only owing to the inadvertent absence in their constituencies of some Members that the Government secured their point at all in this what we hold to be grossly unjust treatment of what I may call public utility docks as compared with private railway docks. That being so, we had hoped to have an opportunity to lay the ease before Members of the House of Commons and take their judgment upon it. This is not a party matter. By far the major part of the support for this most just proposal comes from members of parties to neither of which I belong. The Government are in the same difficulty themselves over the ruling given by Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should like to ask whether they intend to re-commit the Bill, or, if not, whether they will permit me to make a Motion at the end of the Report stage. We have plenty of time. It could be re-committed forthwith, and then we should be liberated from these shackles of the Rules of the House about imposing charges on the Report stage. I suggest that is a reasonable proposal, inasmuch as the difficulty exists and the rulings of the Chair prevent us even dis-
cussing a thing which is exciting very great interest in Scotland. Will they either themselves move to re-commit the Bill at the end of the Report stage, or put no obstacle in the way of a Motion for re-committal moved by a private Member?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I hope the Government will try to help us in this difficulty. It is in the interests of the business procedure of the house that they should do so. There is a strong claim to be considered. Some of us have been given our time, especially in Committee, in trying to handle these matters, and also on other occasions with representatives of public bodies, and now we are to be told that we are blocked in the procedure of carrying this Measure. Sorely, that calls for some guidance from the Government. The Government are in a difficulty as well as hon. Members. The House is being held up. We do not want to waste time, but we do want justice done. To say that one town in Scotland shall obtain this concession without any difficulty, and that we are not to have an opportunity now of dealing further with the matter, is most unfair. We have had the case of Greenock being carried through with the assistance of the Government, and now we are told that, so far as we are concerned, the whole thing is blocked. There is necessity for the strongest possible protest.

Sir J. GILMOUR: it is a fact that as far as the ruling of the Chair is concerned, the Government have accepted it, and in so far as that ruling concerns the Government, the Government are not going to recommit these Clauses. I say further that I realise the feelings of hon. Members who are moving these Amendments, in view of the riding. As far as the Government are concerned, we do not propose in ally circumstances to accept these Amendments, and I would beg respectfully to say to the House that the dignified and proper course is to accept the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON: On the question of the adjournment of the Debate and the statement just made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the House will observe that he has carefully omitted to make any statement whatever about the fact that a variation has taken place
to-night: that in the case of Greenock a variation has been permitted.

Mr. STEPHEN: I think the Government have taken the wiser course in not recommitting this Bill. However much I agree with my colleagues in regard to these Amendments, I recognise the fact that the Government have a very docile majority behind them, and that that docile majority would have been able to make our Amendments of no effect in this House. The fact that we have put them on the Paper and that we have pressed them seems to me to make our position perfectly plain. I am glad to hear that the Government say, definitely, that they are accepting the rulings of the Chair, and that they are gong to allow the Bill to go through in the form in which it is now. If there were some possibility of free votes in the House, or there being no whipping of parties, and the balance of argument being allowed to decide the matter, well and good, but when we have the party system in operation, I recognise the fact that inasmuch as the Government are accepting decision we cannot expect to be put into a different position in regard to the matter. I hope that possibly in fu[...]me the logic of events will show that we on these benches are right and that the Government will have to introduce amending legislation. It will be for the facts of the future to show. At the same time, I am convinced that the Government have chosen the wiser course and the dignified course in deciding to accept the decision and not recommit the Bill.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I was pleased to hear the statement from the Secretary of state for Scotland that the Government do not intend to recommit the Bill and that they are prepared to accept the ruling of the Chair. That is the reason why I am very anxious that they will try to help us to get over this difficulty, so that we can have discussions on the Amendment which has been the cause of the Motion for the Adjournment. We have already had a ruling from the Chair in connection with Greenock, and that ruling applied to Greenock and in connection with public utility undertakings. Hence, I sincerely trust that, having received a guarantee that the Clauses which deal with increases from 2½ per cent. to 5 per cent. for collecting of rates are not to be recommitted, I trust that the Government will agree to help us out
of this difficulty, I recognise that we have to accept the ruling of the Chair. What was the ruling on this particular subject? There is a difference of opinion. Two rulings have been given, one by yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It was bound to make an increased charge as far as the first ruling was concerned, but this proposal will not make an increased charge so far as the total which the ratepayers have to provide in concerned. Therefore, I trust that having had one ruling which allowed us to debate the question as far as Greenock was concerned, the Government will help us now so that the public utility undertakings will not be placed in a worse position than privately owned railways and harbours.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: What is the Government's public duty in this matter? Here is a question which, as the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (captain Benn) has pointed out, was only carried by a majority of two or three. In Committee the Lord Advocate misinstructed himself and misled the Committee When he stated that rail-Ways are allowed 75 per cent. deduction On their whole undertaking. That is an entirely wrong statement. Nothing of the kind is the case. It is only on iron rails that this deduction is given. The Lord Advocate misinstructed himself. It is the duty of the Government not to take advantage of a technicality. If they do not give the House an opportunity of debating this matter, all I can say is that it will leave a very bad taste in the mouth. It will give a sort of feeling that, they are prepared to take advantage of a mere technicality or of a ruling. There have been two contradictory ruling, one from the Speaker and one from the Deputy-Speaker on precisely he same point. If the Government shelter themselves behind that, and do not give the House an opportunity of discussion and vote, they will suffer much in the estimation of the country generally, as well as in the estimation of their own supporters.

Mr. HARDIE: The whole of this trouble can be summed up in this way. There has never been a clear understanding between Government and the Chair. When you consider what is provided in the Schedule no wonder it makes it very
difficult for any Chairman to give a ruling. Take No. 7, in the First Schedule, which deals with sewers, drains or sewerage works. A sewer passing under land which is unoccupied has to pay rates, but the land under which the sewer passes does not pay rates because it is not occupied. Surely if the sewer in the ground is subject to taxation, the land through which it passes should be subject also to taxation. If we are going to provide all these advantages for private enterprise and throw all these burdens on to the ratepayers, surely, in the name of justice and in the interests of the community——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not now giving reasons why the Debate should be adjourned, but is speaking entirely on the merits of a particular Clause.

Mr. HARDIE: I think there should be an Adjournment so that the Bill may be re-drafted on the lines I am suggesting.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is one way of getting round it.

Mr. HARDIE: If we want the Debate adjourned in order that the Bill may be reconstructed, I think we ought to be at liberty to give our reasons in the way I am doing. If the Government are so stiff and want to do it dis-service to the community in order to give a privilege to private enterprise, at a time when private enterprise is more able to pay than the community, well and good, but let them make it plain and not try to hide it under a Schedule like this.

Mr. SKELTON: In one word I want to urge the Government to make sure that in another place what is thought to be, and I believe is, a mere error, the origin of which all Scottish Unionists thoroughly understand is corrected in another place, and not to ride off on a ruling which has been given.

Captain BENN: Does the hon. Member seriously mean to advance the proposition that the House of Lords shall have power to impose charges on the taxpayer?

Mr. SKELTON: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member, who is so well skilled in constitutional questions. Let me put it this way. I think the Government misunderstands the strength
of feelings there is among Scottish Unionist Member in regard to this point. I do not go into the merits of the case, but I urge the Government not to ride off on a technicality, and above all to allow no feelings of pride or Departmental

amour propre to prevent them putting right what is clearly an error.

Question put, "That further consideration of the Bill as amended, be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes 64: Noes, 162.

Division No. 503.]
AYES.
[9.1 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ritson, J.


Amman, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Baker, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour. E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
John. William (Rhondda, West)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
Lindley, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Macquisten, F. A.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Day, Colonel Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whitley, W.


Dunnico, H.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Fenby, T. D.
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert {Lancaster, Newton)


Gardner, J. P.
Paling, W.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Westwood and Mr. T.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normenton)
Purcell, A. A.
Johnston.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker- Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fairfax. Captain J. G.
Loder, J. de V.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Finburgh, S.
Lougher, L


Astbury, Lieut. Commander F. W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Athoil Duchess of
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Herman


Atkinson, C.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Macdonald R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Balniel, Lord
Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacIntyre, I.


Barclay-Harvey. C. M.
Gates, Percy
McLean, Major A.


Berry, Sir George
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Betterton, Henry B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grace, John
Merriman, F. B.


Blundell, F. N.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grotrian, H. Brent
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hanbury, C.
Murchison, C. K.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Burman, J. B.
Haslam. Henry C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hawke. John Anthony
Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Henderson, Capt. R. R (Oxf'd, Henley)
O'Neill, Ma|or Rt. Hon. Hugh


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Lieut-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Penny, Frederick George


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hennessy Major J. R. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perkins. Colonel E. K.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hills, Major John Walter
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Christie, J. A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Clarry, Reginald George
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Price, Major C. W. M.


Clayton, G. C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Remer, J. R.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hume, Sir G. H.
Remnant, Sir James


Cope. Major William
Hurd, Percy A.
Rentoul, G. S.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hutchison, G.A.Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)
Ropner, Major L.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jacob, A. E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon, Cuthbert
Rye, F. G.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Famham)


Dixey, A. C.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sandeman. A. Stewart


Edmondson, Major A. J.
King, Captain Henry Doublas
Savery, S. S.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Shepperson, E. W.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Skelton, A. N.


Smithers, Waldron
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wise, Sir Fredric


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Withers, John James


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, W. J.


Storry-Deans, R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Stott, Lieut.-Colonal W. H.
Wells, S. R.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Streatfield, Captain S. R.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)



Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, south)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Tinne, J. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Captain Viscount Curzon and Captain Lord Stanley.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(Provisions as to the determination and payment of compensation to officers or servants entitled thereto.)

Amendments made: In page 28, line 14, leave out the words "for Scotland" and Insert instead thereof the words "of State."

In line SO, at the end, insert the words
(d) A claim for compensation shall not be maintainable unless it is intimated to the compensating authority within two years of the date on which it is alleged to have arisen.

In page 29, leave out from the first word "servant," in line 4, to the second word "county," in line 6, and insert instead thereof the words "under any parish council, town council, or."

In line 17, leave out the words "council or parish" and insert instead thereof the words "town or county council or."

In line 25, leave out the words "or the" and insert instead thereof the words "town council or."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Third Schedule.—(Enactments repealed.)

Amendment made: In page 31, line 22, column 3, leave out the word "Section" and insert instead thereof the words "Sections three hundred and forty-six and."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Captain BENN: When will it be in Order for me to submit a Motion "That the Kill be re-committed in respect of the First Schedule"?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It would be in order for the hon. and gallant Member to move that as an Amendment to the Motion for the Third Heading of the Bill.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I am certain that the House, particularly the Scottish Members who have followed closely the Debates in Committee and have taken part in our discussions here, will believe me when I say that I am indebted to Members in all parts of the House for the way in which they have dealt with the Bill. I wish to express the indebtedness which we on the Scottish Standing Committee owe to the Lord Advocate for the clarity with which he has explained the various Clauses. I am sure that all of us recognise how complex and difficult a Measure of this kind can be. The Government and I are indebted also to many representatives of local authorities, town councils and county councils, and I would like to say that throughout the period since this Bill was introduced, in the discussions which have taken place both in London and in Scotland, we owe a great deal to the interests concerned. It is clear that in any Measure of this kind, which makes fresh arrangements, there are bound to be differences of opinion among those who are concerned and among Members of this House. But this Bill, in its conception and passage, in the main commends itself to the people of Scotland. I believe it will bring about simplification and a measure of economy in administration, and, if that is done, it may pave the way in future days for other Measures dealing with this problem. I hope that hon. Members who may have been disappointed because they have not secured for the various interests for which they have spoken, all that they desired, will recognise that the Government have endeavoured to hold an even hand between the various disputants.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I desire in a few words to acknowledge what has been said by the Secretary of State for Scotland regarding the Scottish local authorities and the Members on this side of the House, and I also desire to join in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's tribute to the care which has been shown by the Lord Advocate and to his courtesy
in receiving innumerable deputations in connection with this Bill. We on this side differ from the Government on many occasions and we certainly differ from them on certain vital principles in this Measure. For my own part, I think the great difficulty about the Bill which is now about to leave this House is that it, continues the system of deductions from gross valuation for the purposes of local rates. True, it sets up a certain uniformity as regards different classes of property in Scotland, and then proceeds to impose local rates upon the gross valuation so reduced. We made it plain during the Committee stage that we believed in the original recommendation of the Dunedin Committee, that the ideal system was to impose local rates upon gross valuation. Had that been done we would have got rid of a great many of the anomalies and difficulties which attend this Measure, even in its present form.
The Government argued all along that while this was an ideal course it was impossible under existing conditions because of industrial depression and other problems of the kind. While we on this side are fully aware of the weight of industrial depression to-day, we cannot admit for one moment that this is a final argument for the perpetuation of a rating system which leaves so many anomalies in our midst. I believe, Personally, that if some time had been given for the application of the simpler principle I have indicated many of the difficulties arising from industrial depression would have disappeared. I will only say in conclusion that while we agree with the administrative economies which this Bill will introduce and while we have supported many of its proposals and have ourselves made proposals, I think practically all my colleagues are agreed that we must look to the time in the future in Scotland when these deductions will disappear and when we shall have a true uniformity on the basis of the ideal laid down origiNally by the Dunedin Committee that local rates in Scotland should be imposed upon gross valuation.

Captain BENN: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Schedule I.
It has come as a surprise to Members of the House to realise the position in which we are placed in the matter of altering this Schedule. The Schedule was put into the Bill and the Bill was read a Second time. There was no chance of amending it at that stage. The Bill then passed to a Committee, and it comes back from the Committee in a form in which, in many respects, it cannot be altered. No Member of this House, whatever may be thought of this Schedule, is at liberty to move Amendments to redistribute these burdens, beccause the Rules of the House do not permit of that being done during the Report stage. I get one crumb of comfort from this situation. If the Scottish Members in the Scottish Committee, dealing with any of these financial matters, can secure sufficient support to impose their will upon the Government, then the Government will be powerless when they come to the House to override the decisions of the Scottish Committee in those financial matters—unless, of course, they re-commit the Bill. In the ordinary way, on the Report stage, they will not have power. It will be good news to Scottish Members that, at any rate, this small measure of financial control is conceded to them, is they can only win their way in the Committee.
The particular reason why I wish the Bill re-committed in respect of this Schedule is that a great injustice is being done to a public utility organisation in favour of a privately-owned organisation. I represent the port of Leith. We have a Dock Commission there, and the people who serve on the Dock Commission receive no salaries. It is not a profit-making undertaking. Its sole object is to he efficient and to pay its way, and it gives back the benefits which it earns by its efficiency in the form of lower charges and, consequently, lower prices to the consumers of the goods which pass through the port. A few miles away is another port owned by a railway company. The amount allowed off for that railway dock is greater—although the railway is a private undertaking—than the amount which is allowed off for the publicly-owned dock, run solely in the public interest. If we had had an opportunity of putting this case to the Members of the House—and I understand the hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Lieut.-Colonel Thom),
intended to do so—I do not believe that on a free Vote of the House we would have failed to secure our point. The Lord Advocate has given two reasons for this Schedule, both of which have proved fallacious. One is that the railway docks were already too highly rated. That has been shown by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) to be a mistake. The second was that the railway docks were not separately valued as such. That also is low known to be an error. There is no reason, in practice or in justice, for this differentiation, and I move to re-commit the Bill in order that Members of all parties who feel the injustice of this inequality may have an opportunity of convincing their fellow-Members that their case is right and securing a majority in the Lobby on its behalf.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for reasons not precisely the same as those advanced by the Mover, and in respect of another matter altogether. I join with what has been said regarding the ability and skill with which the Lord Advocate has piloted this highly technical Measure through Committee and through the House, and I regret that be has shown so little resiliency and so little responsiveness to our reasoned appeals in this matter. He has gone on the assumption that what was origiNally in the Schedule must be stuck to at all costs, no matter what any section of Members of the House may be able to prove as to its injustice and unfairness. I refer particularly to the case of a publicly-owned ferry. There is one publicly-owned ferry in Scotland, the Newport Ferry, on the River Tay at Dundee. No profit is made there. It is a public undertaking and, as far as I am aware, it is the one undertaking which will suffer financially as a result of this Bill. I think both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate boasted that no undertaking in Scotland would be worse off as a result of the Bill.

The LORD ADVOCATE: indicated dissent.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am sorry if I misinterpreted the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Do I understand him to admit that some interests are worse off
as a result, of this Schedule? Certainly there is one—the only one so far as I know—and it is this particular public utility. This ferry is principally used for the conveyance of workers to and fro across the Tay. At present the undertaking is allowed deductions of 45 per cent. from the Dundee Town Council, 75 per cent, from the Newport Parish Council and 50 per cent, from the Forfar Council. Under the Bill all those deductions are cancelled and they are only to be allowed a 20 per cent, deduction. I would have no grievance whatever if every other ferry in the country were treated in the same way, but ail the privately-owned ferries, the ferries belonging to railway companies and running for profit, are included in the railway companies' property and get 25 per cent, deduction. To this moment I have not heard a shred of argument to show why a privately-owned ferry from which profit is taken, run as part of a railway undertaking, should be allowed a 25 per cent. reduction while a publicly-owned ferry from which no profit is taken should only be allowed 20 per cent. deduction?
The Lord Advocate says, as he said upstairs, that, he could not afford to vary the Schedule; that if you would lower the burdens to one you would increase them to another. He varied his charges to night. He allowed Greenock a benefit for five years. I saw what was happening and I asked him if he admitted that that was a financial concession to Greenock. He said, yes, but it was an infinitesimal amount and only for five years. This means an increase of £100 per annum for the Dundec Ferry. To give the Dundee Ferry the same terms as are given to private enterprise ferries, would only mean this on a variation of this Schedule, 007 of a penny. Yet he declines to do it. He throws this burden of £100 on the publicly-owned ferry. I very gladly and willingly second the Motion moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith that Schedule be recommitted.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I feel that we have not had quite credit. There is no doubt that this thing got through the Committee by a very small majority— three. One mistake that was made was an error of figures. It was said by the Lord Advocate that a railway under-
taking including harbour and stations and lines is valued as a whole and on a construction cost. He also stated that railways got a 75 per cent. deduction on burgh rates on their undertaking, which includes the harbour, when it is within the burgh. He also said:
The ordinary harbours get none. On working out the figures we find that the 25 per cent. exactly reproduce the existing deductions on railways, including their harbours. On the other hand the average figures relating to the harbours which my hon. Friend represents, came out considerably below the 20 per cent., and they are to gain as a whole very considerably. I am not prepared to accept this proposal from people who are to gain under this Bill on the average."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills), 15th July, 1926; col. 193.]
That was an error. The railways never got 75 per cent. They got 75 per cent. on the steel rails. On the harbours there was a cost of construction basis which as a matter of fact works out at a slightly higher percentage than that which the public harbour is already getting. Supposing the whole of this deduction was to be given, it does not amount to £26,000 per annum on the whole rateable value of Scotland and 06 per cent. That may be a variation in the technical sense and may be increasing the terms, but it reminds me very much of the scientific proof that if you take a bucket of water out of Campbeltown Bay, theoretically you lower the level of the surface in San Francisco Bay.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not seem to be a reason why these words should be omitted.

Mr. MAGQUISTEN: Even in the case of the Clyde Trust in a few years it will work out at £100,000. We all know that Glasgow is the Clyde. I do not think anybody will accuse me of being in any sense hostile to private enterprise, but I do not believe in it getting an advantage over the public institutions owned by public corporations. The balance should be held evenly between them. It is far more important that justice should be done in a thing of this kind. We have got along with our rating up to now. It is very unsatisfactory but we can very well wait. By the perfectly proper ruling of the Chair we have been foreclosed from dealing with the injustice between the two.

Sir A. SPROT: I consider, speaking as a county councillor, a Scotsman, and a resident in Scotland—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: At the moment, the Question before the House is that the Bill should be re-committed. We are not now on the Third Reading.

Sir A. SPROT: Then I will reserve my remarks for another occasion.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I would like to quote the exact words used by the Lord Advocate in regard to the point of making concessions on Nos. 4 and 5 in Schedule 1.
The effect of this alteration in the Schedule is very trifling, because these are localised works and the effect in the particular parishes is really to maintain the existing incidence as regards these subjects. If on any of the other Amendments the Movers can satisfy us that the Schedule does not reproduce the existing position, and that their proposal does, of course we shall accept it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills), 13th July, 1926; col. 180.]
Thus Dundee Ferry stands alone in Scotland as a statutory ferry. It is well that we have in view that at the present time at the end of the financial year or in May last there was a debit on ferries of £6,875. There is £100 of difference which is now agreed between the parties and involves 12 per cent. increase upon present rates. This is a ferry largely used by the working people in Dundee. Substantially the point of the Amendment to recommit the Bill is that we should get the opportunity of going into this matter. That ferry is a very subsidiary matter compared with all the important questions which includes the Harbour of Dundee. Under the old classification to which the Lord Advocate referred when dealing with some of the other Amendments, we must bear in remembrance that the railways receive advantages throughout the generality of the parishes in Scotland. That in itself is one of the strong reasons why we should keep in view now the stage that would be considered if this Amendment were carried, namely, that the harbour authorities, not only in Dundee, but in Leith and other parts, are very greatly handicapped by the fact of having to increase their dues, and we should really do something to encourage the shipping interests that are so much in need of stimulation.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I support this Amendment net for the purpose of obstructing this Bill, as many of us on this side are anxious to see the Bill on the Statute Book. Although it may not be good in all its parts, it is good in some of its parts, but I feel sure that a very grave injustice will be done unless this Amendment is agreed to. Not only the trusts will be affected, but we have many municipalities in Scotland which have control of their own docks and harbours. The Town Council of Kirkcaldy have a harbour under their control, as has the small Burgh of Dysart, and these burgh undertakings under the control of municipalities are not going to be allowed more than 20 per cent. deduction, whereas the privately-owned harbours on each side of these municipal undertakings will be allowed 25 per cent. deduction. It seems to me that the Government are doing all they can to make it as difficult as possible for municipal enterprise, and they will lose nothing in accepting this Amendment. If the House decide to reject this 25 per cent., let the responsibility be that of the House. If the Government agree to accept the Amendment and re-commit the Bill, it would not take half an hour's time, and they could allow, without any discussion at all if they like, a free vote of the House as to whether we are going to penalise municipal undertakings and harbour trusts to the extent of 5 per cent. as compared with harbours which are under the control of private enterprise. I plead with the Lord Advocate, because I think we can all agree that he has really been very courteous all through the discussion of this Bill. Surely, when he has almost got his Bill, he can do the finest act of courtesy of all by agreeing to allow the House to decide whether we are to get a fair deal for the municipal undertakings which have control of docks and harbours.

The LORD ADVOCATE: My right hon. Friend has already explained why the Government cannot accept a Motion for recommittal, but I would like to say, in reference to several of the illustrations which have been given, with regard to proposed variations in Schedule I, that, taking first of all docks and harbours, it is quite true, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) has said that
the position of the Government throughout has been that Schedule I is an attempt to reproduce as near as possible the existing situation, only you must bear in mind that it is reproducing it on an average, and, therefore, it is not a criticism of the Schedule to bring up the case of an individual ratepayer, and to say he is suffering. What you would require to show would be that one of the existing classes under the present classification is not fairly dealt with under Schedule I. Therefore, the My ferries, which have been referred to, are individual ratepayers at present dealt with in the matter of deductions along with the other ferries in the country, and it cannot, be denied with any fairness that the deduction given to the ferries generally is as nearly as may be a fair repetition of the average of the existing deductions. To give an illustration, of course, where you are striking an average, some of the units or individuals on whom you strike the average will be below, and others will be above. That is how you get your average, and naturally the person who is lowest below it is the worst hit, and is the one who claims first and says: "Let me out, or give me special concessions, and it will not affect you very much." But once you begin letting out, your average gradually gets higher and higher, until it disappears altogether. Therefore, however sorry one may feel that the Tay ferries will be hit, even to the limited amount suggested—somewhere about £100, which means less than a twentieth of a penny—

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Would that 100, allocated, make any appreciable difference?

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is not an argument. We must stick to a logical classification and keep the classes the same, for if you once begin modifying because one single individual suffers, I cannot say what in tato it would mean. You must keep your class complete, or else you cannot compose your Schedule, I make that point, because I want to come to the next one, which affects directly this suggestion, which I still think is quite a wrong-headed suggestion, from the argumentative point of view, about the railways and the harbours. An examination of the figures which are in the White Paper shows quite clearly —and I do not think anyone disputes it
—that as a result of this Schedule, if you take the harbours by themselves, their position will be improved by this Bill, and materially improved. If you take the railways by themselves, you will find that they are going to be improved, but not so much as the harbours. It is not very much either way, but the fact remains that the new position between the railways and the harbours is going to be better for the harbours than it is at the present moment, and, therefore., if there be any ground for a grievance at all on the part of the harbours, it is not on this Schedule, because it puts them in rather a better position, and it must be on the existing state of the matter.
Let me say a word on that. The whole of this suggested grievance of the harbours is founded on a complete fallacy. While it is quite true that one sentence of one of my remarks in Committee on this subject may be said to be not quite accurate—that is to say, that when I referred to the fact that railway undertakings get 75 per cent. deduction with regard to burgh rates, I omitted to say specifically that it is only the lines that get that deduction—as a matter of fact., the figures were perfectly correct. One cannot help in Committee having a little looseness when describing a thing generally, but the figures were absolutely accurate and were made up in the right way. I want, however, to get away from figures as much as possible. The harbours say, "It is true that, relatively to the railways, we are going to be better off as the result of this Bill than we were before, but the railways are unfairly competing with us, because whether we are better or not, in fact, they are getting 5 per cent. more." That is where the fallacy comes in. Railway undertakings, as a whole, which include far more than harbours, are getting 25 per cent. or over, but no one has the right to say that railway harbours by themselves are getting 25 per cent. Railway harbours only form less than 7 per cent. of the total railway undertakings in Scotland, and the subject for which the 25 per cent. deduction has been given is the whole railway undertaking. Then how can they say, "Railway docks and railway harbours are getting 25 per cent. and we are only getting 20 per cent?" You are not comparing like with like. The truth is there
is a fallacy at the basis of the whole of this claim, and it. is really enough to point out, in the first place, that it must be admitted, as all along it has been admitted, the harbours, taken by themselves, are to be better off under this Bill than the railways—I am not talking about railway docks only—as a whole are. The only argument beyond that which it is sought to enforce is that railway docks are better off when they get 5 per cent. more. Where do you find that they are? They are not separate, and therefore the whole of that argument falls. Accordingly, if there were to be any Recommittal, it would have to be with regard to all the points on which there have been rulings, and at this stage it would be impossible to do that. Accordingly the Government must oppose the Motion.

Captain BENN: Inasmuch as, by the latitude you have allowed, we have been able to discuss the points upon which we felt very keenly that we were being unjustly deprived of discussion, if the Seconder agree, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment for re-committal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed. "That the Bill he now read the Third time."

Sir A. SPROT: I will only say a word in commendation of the Bill which has arrived at its last stage. It is a Bill which has long been desired in Scotland, and I believe the result of it will be to simplify and make much more efficient our system of rating.

Orders of the Day — PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Leading read.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I apologise to the House for having to speak again, but this Bill concerns Scotland, and more particularly the city of Edinburgh. It is a Bill designed to amend the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877. The real reason why I bring this Bill before the House is that, as Scottish Members are aware, the jail we speak of in Edinburgh as the Old Calton Jail has been vacated, and a new prison has
been built to the westward of the city. Under the present law, the prison would require to be put up to public auction. That would bring about possibilities which both the Government and the city of Edinburgh think undesirable in the case of a site which, in the view both of the City Council of Edinburgh and the Government, should be retained for Government purposes. The first Clause of this Bill therefore is to provide that not only this particular prison, but any other prison which, under the Act, may fall out of use, should not be put up for public auction to be competed for by outside bidders, but that it should be at the discretion of the Government in consultation with others, and with the consent of the Treasury, to dispose of as may seem fit.
The second Clause deals with a matter which particularly concerns Orkney and Shetland. The power which is asked does not impose any obligation upon Orkney and Shetland. It. does not take away from them the right of keeping the prison in Orkney and Shetland as long as they are prepared to do so, but, it will be possible, if at some time it is found not to lie suitable, to make use of a reconstructed portion of that building for cells, in order to obviate great expense to the Government in the transfer of prisoners. I do not think that in any measure this Bill can be called controversial, and, in view of the particular Clause dealing with the City of Edinburgh, I would venture to ask the House to agree to give me all the stages of the Bill at this time, in order that the matter may be proceeded with. I only ask for that because it is a matter of urgency to get those in consultation with the City of Edinburgh to dispose of the prison in Edinburgh, Of course, I am in the hands of the House in the matter, but I would make this appeal.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As the Secretary for Scotland has indicated, this Bill will probably be quite uncontroversial in character, but, as he has asked for all stages of the Measure to-night, it will be necessary for a representative of Edinburgh to say not more than a word or two on the subject. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, if a Bill of this kind be not passed, it is the duty of the Prison Commissioners, or whoever has charge of the prison, to dispose of it
by public sale. It is no longer used as a prison, and, of course, the old Calton Jail in Edinburgh, on one of the most beautiful sites in Scotland, would in these circumstances be exposed to the risk of sale and of passing into the hands of some sort of enterprise, which might make use of this site in a way by no means consistent with the environment, and, probably, hostile to the views of a very large number of the citizens. So it would ill become any Labour Member or Socialist—if I may emphasise that word for a moment—to impede the Government for one second in the laudable step they are taking to preserve this property for public use.
On the principle of the Measure we are entirely with them, but as the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked us to give him all the stages of the Bill to-night I must raise one question of importance to the City of Edinburgh. One of the original proposals was that Calton Gaol should be specified in this Measure, but I understand the view of the Scottish Office was that if a particular gaol—and of course it is the case of Calton Gaol which has given rise to the Bill—were inserted, it would make it a hybrid Measure, and lead to difficulties in other directions. Accordingly, Calton Gaol is not specified, and the Measure is general in character, but a question arises as to what power the Corporation of Edinburgh are to have over the site on which the gaol now stands. My sole anxiety at the moment is to find out from the Government whether any agreement has been reached which will provide definitely that the Corporation of Edinburgh are to be consulted as to the future use of that site. If we can have an assurance on that point, the last trace of difficulty would disappear, and we should join in the effort to maintain intact for all time a most beautiful part of what many of us regard, with real affection, as the most beautiful city in the world.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: With regard to the second portion of the Bill, which more particularly affects the County of Orkney, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that some apprehensions were expressed at one time with regard to the obligations and the expense which this Measure might. place on the County of Orkney, and I was very glad to hear
him give the assurance that the status quo will be maintained unless and until the county itself makes application to the Minister. That, I believe, is quite clear.

Sir J. GILMOUR: indicated assent.

Sir R. HAMILTON: That being the case, the county has no objection to this Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not rise because of any opposition to the main purpose of this Bill, which is to secure the retention of the Calton Gaol site in the hands of the Government. As the Secretary of State knows, I am strongly in favour of that course. I have a sentimental attachment to this particular building. From the external point of view, I think it is an architectural feature of the City of Edinburgh, one which all the people in Scotland are proud to look on—from the outside. The reason I intervene is to oppose the request for all the stages of the Bill to-night. First of all, that would be a breach of a practice to which we Scottish Members attach some considerable importance, namely, that a Bill dealing with a purely Scottish matter should go automatically to the Scottish Grand Committee, and what the right hon. Gentleman is asking is that this Measure should be considered in Committee of the Whole House. It may be only a very technical breach of our practice, but it is a breach such as I, Personally, would not like to see corn-mated without a protest being entered.
10.0 P.M.
Then there is another paragraph in the Bill which I want to say something about and to hear the argument of the Secretary of State upon it. He slid over it in his speech. It is Sub-section (1), Clause 2. There he is asking for powers to legalise the use of police cells as places of detention for 30 days—to extend the period of 14 days presently allowed to 30 days. I do not know whether the right hoc. Gentleman has ever been in an ordinary police cell. If he has been, even on a visit of inspection, he must know that, generally speaking, those places are not suited for detaining a human being for more than 24 hours, let alone for 30 days; and I would not be doing the fair thing by my constituents—a fair proportion of whom periodically get landed into those places. [Laughter.]
It is nothing to laugh at. My constituents get run in for petty crimes of drunkenness that would be applauded in this House. Generally speaking, a police cell has for a bed a bit of the stone floor raised above the ordinary level, and the pillow is a bit of the stone raised yet a little bit higher. The blankets and rugs given to a prisoner are very often verminous, even in progressive cities and counties, and I think it is appalling to extend the time during which a man can be kept in one of those places. In the regular prisons to which persons sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment are sent there is at least the most perfect cleanliness, there is a bed upon which an ordinary individual can sleep, and precautions are taken to see that the cell is cleansed and disinfected between its occupation by one prisoner and another. Such steps are not generally taken in police cells used for lock-up purposes, and I for one would have to move the deletion of this Clause if it were proposed to take the whole Bill this evening, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should change his mind on that point. The Government have made very good progress with most of their Measures this Session. [Interruption.] If they have not, there must have been some slackness somewhere; and I think that on three days last week the Government programme for the day was exhausted before half time. Obviously, there is no serious pressure of time to justify us in going through the three stages of this Bill to-night.

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I said, I merely asked that, this Bill should be regarded by the House as non-contentious. The point the hon. Member is raising is a Committee point, and if hon. Members are going to discuss it it must go to Committee.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I would like to know whether arrangements are to be made to sustain the pre-emption allowed under the Act of 1877, so that cities such as that. I am representing, Dundee, will still have that pre-emption?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think the hon. Member had better leave that point to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.,

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Ordered, That the Lords Message [24th November] relative to Consolidation Bills be now considered.—[Mr. F. C Thomson.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered, That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session.—[Mr. F. C. Thomson.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Colonel England, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, Mr. Neville, Mr. Robert Hudson, Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive, and Sir Henry Slesser nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Mr. F. C. Thomson.]

Orders of the Day — UNION OF BENEFICES AND DISPOSAL OF CHURCHES (METROPOLIS) MEASURE, 1926.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Union of Benefices and Disposal of Churches (Metropolis) Measure, 1926, he presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
In moving this Motion, I am conscious that I am undertaking a very heavy task. I have against me the great authority, so justly respected in this House, of the Corporation of London, and I have also a very large body of artistic and archaelogical opinion, highly respectable because of the talents of the persons who hold those opinions, against me. I feel that I should be altogether daunted in encountering such opposition were I not persuaded that that opposition is founded upon a profound misunderstanding and misinterpretation, which has both misled the Corporation and those artistic societies, and has made them the unwitting means of misleading others. I will briefly deal with the objections that this matter should not come before the House under the provisions of the Enabling Act. The Corporation has raised that issue, and
they raised it in the first instance before the Ecclesiastical Committee. There is no doubt at all, I think, that Parliament contemplated such matters as the City Churches being dealt with under the Enabling Act. It so happened in the discussion of an Amendment, one of several which were moved on the Report stage, that I myself, in resisting the Amendment, which expressed that very kind of objection which is taken to the consideration of this Measure—an Amendment excluding certain things because they concern persons who are not members of the Church of England—I pointed out that, in dealing with Church matters, you could not take them out of the life of the community entirely so as to make them absolutely separate, but that you might have to deal incidentally with things that affect other people. By way of illustration I said, "Suppose we deal, as I hope we are to deal, with the City Churches." As a matter of fact, Parliament was fully informed and fully recognised that this was one of the matters to be dealt with under the Enabling Act. The Parliamentary vote then was for the erection of the Ecclesiastical Committee, one of whose principal duties it is to decide what questions can and cannot be reasonably dealt with under the Act. The Ecclesiastical Committee, of course, considered that question, as they are bound to do in any case in respect of this Measure, and they considered it with all the greater care because it was drawn to their attention by the Corporation of London. Anyone can read the Report, which can be obtained in the Vote Office. It says:
It has been contended that the Measure was ultra vires. In the opinion of the Ecclesiastical Committee the Measure concerns the Church of England within the meaning of the Church of England (Powers) Act, 1919, and is therefore one which the Church Assembly has power to promote under that Act.
It has been further maintained that the Measure, in so far as it operates upon persons unconnected with the Church of England, affects the constitutional rights' of those persons within the meaning of the Act.
Whilst not expressing a decided view as to whether this is so or not, the Committee are of opinion that those rights are not affected in such a way as to make the passage of this Measure inexpedient.
As regards both the petitions above alluded to, in so far as they represent that
the Measure is one likely to result in the disposal or demofition of buildings of architectural or historical importance, the Committee desire to express their view that the alteration effected by the Measure in the procedure for sanctioning schemes of union and disposal is not likely to have this result. On the contrary, their view is that in some respects the safeguards for the preservation of such buildings are more satisfactory under the Measure than under the existing law.
They go on to argue that the Union of Benefices Measure, 1923, has already been considered and adopted by Parliament, and that it is a Measure of similar content, or rather of similar subject, to the Measure now under consideration.

Sir HARRY FOSTER: I am sorry to interrupt the Noble Lord. Will he not inform the House that there was a First Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee? Is it not a fact that there was a First Report of the Committee, in which they said that in face of the opposition of the Corporation of the City of London they could not treat this Measure as if it did not affect in a serious degree the constitutional rights of the community generally?

Lord H. CECIL: The reason for the first Report was that the Committee did not see their way at first to hear the Corporation before coming to a decision. On further consideration, they came, very wisely I think, to the conclusion that the Corporation stands in so peculiar a position that they should hear it. I shall not succeed, I know, in recommending this Measure to the House if I cannot do two things: first, meet the positive objections that have been made to it; and, secondly, I shall not succeed unless I can convince the House that the Measure has not the purposes and intentions that it is supposed to have, because, however completely you answer a particular objection and show that this or that has not the significance which it is supposed to have, people only fall back, when they are in the suspicious mood, upon fancying that there is a "catch" somewhere, and that the case really cannot be so strong as it seems to be. Therefore, I will say one word about how the Measure arose. It arose out of the very familiar difficulty that the City of London has gradually lost its Sunday population until it has now only about 12,000 resident inhabitants on Sunday.
It has still 47 parishes and Churches, with all the organisations of parochial Churches. Naturally that is a matter to be dealt with.
In the closing months of the War and the period immediately following the War we encountered a very considerable body of opinion which said, "By what right do you come to us asking for money for the extension of your churches and church objects and the like when you have here a great number of churches wholly superfluous for the purpose because of their excessive number, which are not of great architectural or artistic value. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] At any rate that is what was said. On one side the Bishop was pressed to destroy a certain number of Churches—a definite number was not mentioned—and the general question was raised that those sites ought to be sold. On the other side there was the great body of artistic opinion—I don't know if they were supported by the Corporation—a great body of opinion strongly opposed to the removal of any Church.
Accordingly the Bishop appointed a Commission to inquire into this question, and that Commission brought in a Report, with which I did not agree, which proposed a very large reduction in the number of the churches. That was the Phillimore Report. As I foresaw, that Report was at once condemned by almost everybody whose support was necessary, and it was quite clear that nothing of the kind could possibly be carried out. I want to make it clear that my point of view was not the point of view of the Phillimore Report and it is not now. I will read a few words from the dissenting Memorandum which I wrote:
I can hardly believe that all these churches marked for destruction in the Report could be destroyed without serious artistic loss. Such churches as St. Alban's, Wood Street, and St. Mary's, Alderman-bury, for example, I should call it barbarous to pull down.
Again, I said,
I must add that I think the removal of a church and the desecration of its site is in itself a great evil.
and yet I am the author of this Measure, and in spite of what I have said I still recommend this Measure to the House. I afterwards moved in the Church Assembly for a Committee to inquire into the matter and recommend the introduc-
tion of a Measure if they thought fit, and they did. They said in recommending it:
The Committee was set up with a strictly limited reference. We were not to inquire into the merits of the controversy about the City churches, or the question of the removal of some of them, but simply to frame machinery by which if and when it seemed desirable benefices in the Metropolis might be united and churches removed under proper safeguards, and we recommend the introduction of the accompanying Measure, which we believe will provide machinery by which all questions relating to the Union of Benefices and the removal of churches in the central area of the Metropolis may be carefully investigated and wisely decided.
That was the point. It was not desired to destroy churches or to prejudge the issue in any way whatever, but it was our desire to have a proper investigation and a wise decision under abundant safeguards.
Let me now come to the next question—what can be done under the old Act of 1860, and what can be done under the Measure; and, again, what are the safeguards against the unwise use of the Act of 1860, and what are the safeguards against the unwise use of this Measure? What can you do? Under the Act of 1860 you can unite two or more contiguous benefices. That you can do by a scheme, which is first framed by a Commission consisting of two members appointed by the Corporation, two appointed by the Bishop, and one appointed by the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's—the majority being, therefore, appointed by the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's and the Bishop. If you do unite those parishes, the scheme can also recommend the removal of any church that is made superfluous by that union. The principal safeguard against that being unwisely done is that you have to obtain the consent of the vestry, as it was then, or the church council, as it now is. Then the draft scheme would go on to the Ecclesiastical Commission, and, if the Commission were friendly as to its details, to the Privy Council. The Privy Council could hear objections in connection with parochial rights and so on, and either recommended or did not recommend an Order in Council confirming the scheme.
It will be observed that under that Act you cannot do two things which very much need doing. You cannot make any
general reorganisation of the city, because you have to carry every point with the consent of the vestries, so that you cannot have a general amalgamation of parishes, because any one parish might throw you over and object, in which case the whole scheme would fall to the ground. If you are to have a comprehensive treatment of the union of benefices, you must have a wider scheme. There is another thing which you cannot do, and which ought to be done; you cannot assign the churches you retain to other purpose than the ordinary parochial purposes of a parish church. Both of these things can be done under this Measure. You can have a wide and large reorganisation, reducing the benefices of the parishes of the city to some reasonably small number, and you can assign any church to some purpose other than the ordinary parochial purpose, being a religious purpose approved by the Bishop of the diocese. If you are going to retain the churches, and not to pull them down, this fast power is really essential. Obviously, you do not need 47 churches for the ordinary parochial purposes of a population which is now no more than 12,000, and you want to assign them to various religious purposes. Mr. Clayton, a City incumbent connected with admirable work, who is justly honoured for his great spiritual work, has a belief that all the churches can be utilised for good religions work. I am not sure whether he does not, as remarkable men so often do, think that, having himself a great spiritual genius, it is possible to multiply indefinitely work like his. I am afraid, however, that it would be a long time before we get many people of his great capacity. At any rate, in order to carry out any programme of that kind, you must have power to assign churches to purposes other than the ordinary parochial purposes of a parish church. You cannot do that under the existing Act.
Then as to safeguards. The Measure, which, with certain differences, closely resembles the Act, has a Commission too—a Commission giving very much greater safeguards towards the piont of view of those who criticise the Measure than are given by the Act. Whereas the majority of the Commission under the Act is appointed by the Bishop of London and the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's,
under this Measure not one single Commissioner is chosen by the Bishop of London. The Commission issues under his hand and seal, and in that sense, of course, which deceives some people, he makes the appointment, but he acts purely mechanically. The nomination is not placed in his hands, but in the hands of two Commissioners of the Corporation, two members of the Committee of the London Diocesan Conference and the Lord Chancellor. Therefore a majority of the Commission must always be persons appointed by secular authority, perfectly independent of the Bishop, and, so far as the two members of the Corporation are concerned, under the influence of the Corporation that appoints them.
The second safeguard is that from the very opening of the matter the whole transaction is surrounded by publicity, to a much greater degree than attaches to the proceedings under the Act, because at the very outset, if you are going to touch the Church you must send a notice to the Royal Fine Art Commission and they make an inquiry and send a report as to its value. When people suppose that this is a conspiracy to destroy the churches, one trembles for the reason of mankind. Who is plotting to destroy the churches? There is a provision by which the most influential artistic authorities in the country have their attention called to the proposed destruction at the very earliest moment. If you went along a street and saw someone trying to get into the door of a building and you were in doubt whether he was a burglar or a householder who had host his latchkey, key whether he was an honest or a dishonest person, would you not he greatly reassured if the first thing he did was to call the assistance of a policeman in getting into the door? That is the analogy of the scrutiny that is invited from the Royal Fine Art Commission. Of course the purpose is not in the least to trample upon public opinion, but if these churches are really of first class, or even considerable artistic value, there is no intention of destroying them. By all means let the artistic value be publicly announced and fully weighed and gauged, and if it turns out that they are really of this great value no church can possibly be destroyed under this Measure. Nothing
that is really valuable can be taken away because the safeguards are so elaborate.
Then publicity is further secured because notice has to be sent to a whole cataract of artistic and other societies who are invited to object if they have any objection. The list is stupendous. In case of the removal of a church, notice has to be given to the patron and incumbent of any benefice affected by the scheme, the churchwardens, and parochial church council of any parish, the Common Council of the City of London. They are to be given notice if it is only a union of benefices if for removing a church, also to the Commissioners of Works, the Ancient Monuments Board, the Royal Academy of Arts, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Society of Antiquaries of London, the Royal Fine Art Commission, the Central Committee for the Protection of Churches as well as the Standing Committee of the National Assembly of the Church of England and the Standing Committee of the Diocesan Conference. Does that suggest to you a conspiracy? Is that how a conspirator would behave? Does a conspirator, desirous of a great and far-reaching destruction of churches, usually publicly invite the attention of the people who he knows will most disapprove of it?
Is it not perfectly manifest that the purpose is to get a decision which conforms to wise, moderate public opinion, including the public opinion expressed by these societies. That, of course, is the purpose. If hon. Members followed my account of how the thing originated, they will see that that is natural enough The purpose of the Measure is to relieve the Bishop of the invidious position of standing between two conflicting bodies of opinion, and to be placed instead in full touch with the general public opinion of reasonable people: on one side, those who are interested in the Church and its religious aspect, and on the other side, though not necessarily from the point of view of opposition, that great body of artistic and archaelogical opinion which is naturally and reasonably interested. The purpose was and is to decide all these questions ratioNaily and broadly in accordance with moderate and rational public opinion, and so long as moderate and rational public opinion is against destruction, no church will be destroyed.
This machinery is intended to respond to public opinion. Every part of it is constructed in order that public opinion may prevail. There is not the slightest desire to shirk the issue or to trick or manoeuvre so that public opinion does not get its proper weight. The whole purpose is that the matter may be raised to a position in which the winds of public opinion may operate, and a decision may be come to which will be a decision of which all reasonable and moderate opinion will approve.
If there is any objection, it goes to the Metropolitan Benefices Board. That Board have had already an earlier opportunity of expressing if they chose criticism of the outlined proposals at the very beginning. I notice that that is a provision which excites the darkest suspicion. It was put in for a perfectly rational reason. It was put in so that if it was perfectly clear that the proposals were inadmissible, no time should be lost. In criminal proceedings there is, in addition to the trial before the jury in Court, a grand jury who deliberate upon the case and who may reject any indictment which is absolutely groundless. In order that the Board may know any views which they want to give to the Bishop about the proposals, that they may know the artistic aspects, which they do not always know unless they are properly put before them, and that they may be thoroughly well informed on those artistic aspects, they will refer to the Royal Fine Arts Corn mission. In their own body of 35 members there are a number of artistic capacity. The Metropolitan Benefices Board is intended to express the main characteristic view of the Measure, as representing the opinion of the moderate, reasonable, enlightened and instructed people whose opinion is sought to determine these matters. Of the members of the Board, nine are to be appointed by the Standing Committees of the Diocesan Conferences, five by the Standing Committee of the National Assembly, and four by the Archbishop of Canterbury—these are people I suppose who are most suspected—two by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
Here I should like to refer to the amazing misstatements in that tissue of unreliable misrepresentations which appears in the "Times" this morning: the most amazing statement which ever appeared in a respectable newspaper.
In some important respects it makes positive misstatements. For example, it states that the Bishop is to appoint the Commission. That is not so. Imagine the conduct of a great newspaper on a matter of this kind deliberately misstating a principal safeguard of a Measure which they are attacking. It would seem as if journalists seem to lose all sense of honour and to stoop to any trick, however base, to encompass the object they have in view. In addition to those members who are open to suspicion, and assuming that the critics will not accept the bona fides of the Archbishop of Canterbury's nominees, the rest are all persons who, I think, ought to appeal to hon. Members who criticise the Bill. One is to be appointed by the First Commissioners of Works, one by the Central Committee for the Protection of Churches, one by the Royal Fine Arts Commission, one by the Royal Academy of Arts, one by the Royal Institute of British Architects, one by the Society of Antiquaries of London, one by the University of London, one by the Ruri-decanal Conference of the East City, one by the Ruri-decanal Conference of the West City, one by the churchwardens of the churches of the City of London, four by the Corporation of the City of London and one by the London County Council Fifteen members out of this body of 35 members are people decidedly biased against the destruction of churches, and as far as I am able to judge not one of the other members are in the least biased in favour of the destruction of churches. Certainly, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Standing Committee of the National Assembly are not church breakers by profession, and the idea that the Archbishop of Canterbury will send out four resofute chaplains, who do not stick at trifles, is absurd.
I want hon. Members to see how immense is the weight given to those who are likely to be against the destruction of any church. There are 15 people who are probably much more keen than any of the other members against the destruction of any church, and we can see how they will attempt to bring within their number some of the other people who are appointed by indeterminate bodies who may not have any strong
opinion one way or the other. They have only to convince three out of the other 20 to get themselves an absolute majority. I want hon. Members to conceive the position as it is. Is it not possible that these members, who are armed with the Report of the Fine Arts Commission, these 15 persons who have artistic capacities themselves, will not be able to convince three persons out of the other 20 that the scheme ought to be rejected, if it really is an unreasonable scheme? Short of giving the whole control into the hands of the Corporation of the City of London, could they have more weight and a more important position than they have under this Measure? They appoint two members out of five in the first Commission, and four other members in the larger Board, I ask, why do they dislike this Measure which gives them much more power over these schemes than they have under the Act of 1860? Why should they discuss a Measure which greatly adds to the strength, of their position, and which I should have thought reassured them as to the danger of any step which is taken under it?
The only safeguard that is lost is the parochial church council. That appears to be a body of great confidence now, and yet those who rely upon it say in the same breath, "Why, under the Act of 1860, you destroy 21 churches. What more do you want?" That is not what we want. We do not want to destroy churches; we want the wisest decision, which is quite a different thing. And if the parochial church councils are to be trusted, how came they to consent to those 21 churches being destroyed. The truth is, that if the influence is strong against the destruction of churches, the parochial church council will reject the scheme, and so, of course, equally, will the bodies whom it is proposed to set up. When you have public opinion on that side there is no danger, but, supposing it takes a turn, what confidence have you in the parochial church council? They are very small bodies, not the least representative of the wider church life, and there are 47 different ones, so small and so diminutive are the parishes of the City of London. How can it be wise to entrust our national treasures to bodies who will not be the wisest judges, who will not be able to give an artistic
or well-informed judgment on such questions as these? Artistic societies, like the Corporation, are in a very much better position under the Measure. They have full publicity and other advantages which they have not under the existing Act. Why should they he suspicious when they are so much better off?
Of course, the reason is always the same reason. People start with the theory that this is a Measure to carry out a wholesale destruction of churches, or something like it. As long as they believe that, they are naturally not impressed by any safeguards, however elaborate. You may pile council upon council and tribunal upon tribunal, but they think there is some artifice behind it, some dark ingenuity behind the apparently pleasing machinery of the Measure. That is the belief. There are also the expressions in the weighty memorial laid before the House by the Corporation, repeated in articles all over the country. There are two suspicions. One of them is that there is the intention of the Metropolitan Benefices Board to cut short all deliberations by a decision in favour of the scheme and that by it everybody will be bound. That, of course, is the very opposite of the intention. The intention really is to bring to an end discussion on a scheme that is quite impossible, in order that no time or money may be wasted upon it. And, too, the purpose is that there should be some body which can scrutinise each scheme. This Measure produces a comprehensive scheme. The incumbents of the City, who at first looked at it with very considerable suspicion, became convinced that the Metropolitan Benefices Board was a great gain. So much for that suspicion. This was put in as a safeguard to protect churches, to cut short an unwise attack. It is turned upside down by fantastic suspicion and is supposed to be part of a plot. The other suspicion arises out of the most commonplace routine phrase which I put into the Measure, for I am responsible for the Measure and every part of it; it is altogether my Measure. The words are that when the Commission has rejected a scheme it shall not prevent the Bishop appointing a fresh Commission to consider the matter afresh, if he thinks it wise. The purpose of that is perfectly natural and genuine. It appeared to me as not unreasonable and not unlikely
that in a very complicated matter—the union of benefices is a very complicated matter—some oversight might be made which was not merely an oversight but one which ought to be put right. The Commission holding the inquiry might say, "You never saw that," or there might be some temporary objection of a respected incumbent. It might be necessary to consider that objection. It is of the very nature of oversights that you cannot foresee them. It was only common prudence to provide for putting the matter afresh in a reasonable way, but this most harmless, routine provision for avoiding oversights is turned into more "plot." It is actually believed by the Corporation and many other people that it is intended that the Bishop should bring up over and over again the same proposals until, through weariness, the Lord Chancellor and the Corporation have to give in, not because they are convinced, but because again and again the Bishop brings up the same old proposals and they get tired of meeting the same arguments.

Sir H. FOSTER: What about the limitation of five years?

Lord H. CECIL: The reason for it is that the first inquiry would cover the ground and would show whether there really was an objection, and the second inquiry would deal with all the objections which probably would be found out in the earlier stages. We put in five years there as a concession to reassure people; but are we to imagine an insane Bishop of London endeavouring to make the Lord Chancellor change his mind because the same thing is brought up again and again and again? Are there Lord Chancellors like that? I will not ask whether there are Bishops of London like that, because I know it is part of this strange disease that obsesses people's minds that there is nothing they will not believe about the Bishop. Can we imagine a Lord Chancellor like that or a Corporation like that? Do they change their mind in this way, on a great controversial matter of this kind, in which they have taken up a particular view? According to this nightmare theory they will do so if it is brought up again and again. The whole thing is fantastic. It is a dream. Nothing of the kind was ever meant to happen or could possibly happen. A bishop would never behave in such an
insane fashion, and, if he did, he would not gain anything by it, because the Chancellor and the Corporation would act in exactly the same way as before.
It is said that great position attaches to the Corporation in this matter by reason of the fact that many of these churches are the product of the coal dues in the reign of Charles II. It was a noble act of munificence when the churches were so built, and I deeply honour the memory of that age which at that expense and bearing the burden of the coal dues did this great service to the cause of religion. But I do not think that because a gift has been given the benefactor is for ever entitled to regulate the use of the gift. If I, as a middle-aged bachelor, have on certain occasions made wedding presents to some of my friends, I do not afterwards regulate the use to which they may put those presents. But if it is not a matter of strict right, hut of generous consideration, as such it appeals to me very strongly. I want to do two things. I want first to give the Corporation of London an honourable and important place—as they are given in this Measure—in the determination of these matters. Short of giving them absolute power, I could not do more for them. If they, being in the right, cannot convince the Lord Chancellor's representative, I do not understand why we should put any confidence in Lord Chancellors for any purpose whatever in the future. The Corporation are given a place of great dignity to which on this historical account and on many others they are entitled.
The second thing is I want to have the same sort of religious piety now, the same care for the religious well-being of the people of London, as our ancestors had. That involves a new consideration, namely, the claim of the great populations, without any churches at all, which are now rising up by the hundred thousand in other areas of London. So we shall best honour the recollection of their munificence. People cannot believe there should be opposition against a thing which really deserves it so little. Therefore they think again and again with renewed suspicion that there must be a catch somewhere. There must be some trap or trick behind it. I am the author of the Measure. It is my plan. It was my plan because I took a view, which is neither the view of those who want
to destroy a great number of churches, nor of those who think it is not even worthy inquiry whether a single church should be removed.
I take a more reasonable and moderate view which is expressed in the Measure. I lay it now before the House. A friend of mine, the distinguished incumbent of St. Michael's, says he is in favour of the Measure, because it will he less easy to remove a church under it than under the existing law. Sir Lewis Dibdin is not a believer in the Measure himself, because he thinks it so safeguards the position that there will he nothing done under it. That, to me, is no argument against it. I want to get the question amicably and reasonably settled so as to allay distrust. That shall be my last word, and I ask the House to consider this.
I do not complain of any person who is in his heart and conscience convinced that the true, interest of religion and the Church are injured—I do not ask him if he really believes the great precious works of architectural interest are to be destroyed—I do not complain that such a one should duly consider the purport of the Measure and come to the conclusion that it is his duty to oppose it. The Measure was first introduced in February, 1923. That was after the preliminary Committee. In 1923 it was reported with Amendments. In July, 1924, it was again reported with Amendments. In November, 1924, it was again reported with further Amendments, revised for the third time by the Assembly, and finally approved. All this trouble has been taken; all this thought has been spent in order to get a wise solution for the whole of public opinion. By all means let it he rejected if it can be rejected by well informed people on conscientious grounds, but let us he reminded by the City churches themselves that there is something very important behind all this. I respect and share the veneration that Members feel for the ancient fabrics of the churches themselves. There is, however, something more precious than the fabric, and that is the spirit of the religion which it expresses. It is for the sake of doing good to the Church, and not for the sake of destroying churches, that all this trouble has been taken and all this labour spent. We have tried to
do what will honestly have regard to the feelings of all sorts of people, including the new population arising up outside. We are trying to save money on the churches without destroying a single church. £23,000 a year can be saved by reorganisation. All this we have done in order that the cause of the Church and its religion may be promoted. Do not, like a nurse brushing aside with callous indifference the card house of a child, throw down all the labour that has been expended, but respect it for the sake of the labour that has been put into it, and because of the cause of religion to which it has been dedicated.

Colonel Sir VANSITTART BOWATER: I desire to oppose the Motion. This Measure has been on the Order Paper of this House on several occasions, and we know and believe that the reason why it was not brought forward before the House at the end of the Summer Session was that the Noble Lord who has introduced the Measure to-day did not like the atmosphere of the House and felt perfectly certain that he would lose the day. I think, after the very feeble effort to convince—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—I mean the feeble case presented, not the feeble way in which it was presented, because I appreciated the very able way in which the Noble Lord did present it. I should have said the feeble case that he had to present, and that is, that these churches should be taken away from the City of London. The Noble Lord told us—and I think the more he spoke the more feeble the case appeared to be—that they do not wish to destroy these churches. Then why bring in the Bill? They had ample power under the 1860 Act, and they acted upon it, and they have already had no fewer than 21 churches under it. The Noble Lord said that these churches under this Measure would be more protected than they have been before. We, in the City of London, and all the architectural and archaeofogical societies do not want any more protection than we have, and we are prepared to do the same as we have done before under the 1860 Act. He said there were five Commissions appointed, two being by the Corporation, one by the Lord Chancellor, and two by another body, but he omitted to tell us or he laid very little stress upon it, that if the Bishop
himself did not agree with their findings, he could appoint another Com-mission.

Lord H. CECIL: But would he?

Sir V. BOWATER: The Measure says:
If the Commission report to the bishop that it is undesirable that a scheme under this Measure should he framed, no further proceedings shall be taken in pursuance of the report; but without prejudice to the appointment of another Commission under this Measure in respect to the same proposals, if the bishop shall think the appointment of such Commission desirable.
He could go on doing that ad infinitum. It is all very well to say: "Would the Bishop do it?" Of course he would, if he wanted the churches.

Lord H. CECIL: You are under a misapprehension.

Sir V. BOWATER: The object of this Measure is to pull down these City churches and sell the sites. If that is done, it is nothing less than confiscation in its worst form. These churches were built immediately after the fire by money provided by the citizens, nine-tenths by the Coal Tax and one-tenth by Voluntary contributions, and those churches are standing monuments in the history of the City of London. They are visited by thousands of foreigners who come to the City year by year, and I had the privilege and pleasure only a few days ago of presenting a petition signed by nearly 10,000 people who actually go into these churches and use them regularly—not signed by people who are outside the churches, but by those who actually use them, and yet the Noble Lord says these churches are little used, if ever, and he wants to bring in about the night population. What has the night population got to do with the churches in the City?
11.0 P.M.
Does the Noble Lord think that people should only go to church on a Sunday? In the City, churches are used five or six days out of the seven, and many of them seven days a week. If we were going on that argument we might ask how many churches outside the City of London are used other than on the Sunday and, possibly, Wednesday evening. Is that any argument why these fine old City buildings, erected by eminent architects,
such as Sir Christopher Wren and others, should be sold for filthy lucre? The Noble Lord went on to say that these churches would be used, possibly, for other purposes. That is not the idea at all. If that were the only idea they had, why so anxious to get this Measure through? The only reason they have is to endeavour to pull these churches down, and sell them to get the money to spend elsewhere.
We had in this House the Sheriffs of the City of London, and they represent the most democratic Corporation in this country or any other country. That Corporation is elected annually, and not, like most other boroughs and cities, every three years, so that they actually represent the citizens of London. They did not come here lightly, but they came here voicing the views of the citizens of this City to protect those churches, and I sincerely hope this House will show in no unmeasured voice that we are not going to have these churches sold, and I finish by saying, Hands off the City churches!

Sir HENRY SLESSER: The hon. Member who has just addressed the House has given us, I think, considerably less reasons, or attempted reasons, for rejecting this Measure than have appeared in the Press. In the newspapers all kinds of arguments have been used, and dangers suggested, which might be calculated to deflect the judgment of hon. Members in this House, but I quite appreciate that no Member in this House is moved by anything which is written in a newspaper. I was rather interested in the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) saying that the newspapers had misrepresented him on this occasion. If he were to sit above the Gangway on this side of the House, he would find that the experience which he has suffered from the "Times" was not a matter which happened perhaps once a year, or perhaps once a century. It was continual and constant. I would remind him also, that when he complains, as he rightly complains, that he is said to have the purpose of destroying the City churches, we are accused in season and out of season falsely of having the purpose of destroying the Constitution. Therefore, we can appreciate the feeling which the hon. Member has when these false accusations are made against him.
If I may deal with the actual arguments which have been put before us by the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir V. Bowater), his sole objection, as I understand, to this Measure is that the Bishop has power under the Measure, as he says, to appoint another Commission, when one Commission has not reported satisfactorily. What is actually the position with regard to the power of the Bishop? As has already been pointed out, the Bishop does not select the Commission at all. Only in the most technical and formal sense can the Commission be said to be appointed by him. What the Measure says is that the actual appointments are to be made by certain persons who are stated in the Measure, and this particular paragraph, to which so much exception is taken, says:
If the Commission report to the Bishop that it is undesirable that a scheme under this Measure should be framed, no further proceedings shall he taken in pursuance of the report;
That is the first thing. The Bishop cannot go on at that time. Then it goes on to say
but without prejudice to the appointment of another Commission under this Measure …if the Bishop shall think the appointment of such Commission desirable.
That, I submit, is a common form. When you say that if a particular Commission reports in a certain way no further proceedings shall be taken, unless you save yourselves by giving the power subsequently to appoint another Commission, you would never be able, to all eternity to proceed with the matter at all. It is simply a technical, formal saving of the right to go into the matter again.
The point might have some weight if the Bishop himself selected the members of the Commission, but it has already been pointed out, and the Member for the City of London has not disputed it, that the Bishop does not select the members of the Commission at all. What reason is there for assuming that, when a Commission has already reported against a scheme and the Bishop again seeks to have a Commission set up, the people whose advice has been neglected and rejected will not appoint exactly the same people again as were appointed in the first instance? If a Commission reports against a scheme and the Bishop goes to the same appointing
authorities and says, "I ask you to appoint another Commission," is it likely that the very appointing authorities who have been rejected and flouted will appoint another Commission to please the Bishop? If the only arguments which can be brought against this scheme are derived from a strained interpretation of this paragraph, I think some people in this House see plots and conspiracies in the most unlikely and impossible places. There is nothing in that particular paragraph which can be said to suggest that the Bishop can appoint one Commission after another until he gets one which he desires, and the insistence which is placed upon this paragraph shows the weakness of their case.
It is because they are protected at every conceivable point, because they have the protection of the Benefices Board, because they have the protection of this Commission, because they have the protection of the Fine Arts Commission, and, finally, an appeal to the Privy Council—it is because, if they dealt with the Measure on its merits, they would have to admit that on every point, historically and archaeofogically, these churches are protected, that, I suppose, they must have got some lawyer—and a very inferior lawyer—to look through this Measure, and have said to him, "Is there anything there where there is not perfect protection?" And the lawyer, having looked at paragraph 8, said to them, "You will find there that in spite of the fact that the Commission has turned down the scheme, there is power to appoint another Commission." That right further to appoint is common, I believe, to every such provision, is found in every similar Measure and by-law—that where proceedings shall not be taken on a Commission's Report that shall not prejudice the setting up of another Commission. Otherwise, as I was saying, you could not till the end of time proceed with the matter, and that obviously cannot be the intention of the Measure.
That is the only matter with which the hon. Member for the City of London has dealt in arguing the case. I happen to be a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee who, in common with others, took the responsibility of recommending this Measure to the House. It was urged
that this Measure interfered with the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects, and that this was not an appropriate subject for legislation by the Church Assembly. There is one decisive argument against the contention that this is beyond the power of the National Assembly. This House itself, in 1923, passed a Union of Benefices Measure, which applies to the whole of the rest of England outside London, which gives power to unite benefices and pull down and appropriate churches. Therefore, this House and another place decided in 1923 that a Measure which has for its object the pulling down and setting up of churches outside London was an appropriate Measure to be passed. No objection, so far as I know, was ever taken to it. There are other Measures which were allowed to go through this House, without any question, which affect the rights of patrons and other persons more than they are affected by this Measure.
May I deal with the more general point against the Measure that, if it does nothing to facilitate the destruction of churches, why is it being proceeded with at all? That has already been dealt with, and I would like to emphasise what has been said. First of all, the principle of uniting benefices and dealing with churches is already the law outside London, under the Benefices Act, 1919, and the Benefices Measure, 1923. With all respect to the Corporation of London, there are churches of historical and archaeofogical interest outside London, and churches may be pulled down there, under the Measure of 1923, without any reference to Fine Arts Commission, to any artistic society to any architectural society or to a commission not appointed by the Bishop. In London we have the Benefices Act, 1860, and it is conceded that over 20 churches have been pulled down under that Act. If you are concerned to look to the historical interest of the churches, then the patrons and vestry are not the proper body to decide on these churches. If there is really a plot to exclude the intervention of the Fine Arts Commissioners or any of the other learned and historical societies, who are given power under this Measure, the existing Benefices Act, 1860, excludes
these bodies and simply puts the matter into the uninstructed hands of the patrons and vestry. The vestry may be-anybody. It may be a number of caretakers in the district and the patron may be anybody. If the hon. Member opposite is so concerned to save the churches of historic value a provision which says that you are to report to the Fine Arts Commission and notify all the societies interested is surely a greater safeguard for the churches than going to the patron and the vestry.
It may be said, "Why bother to pull down churches at all?" It has been part of the policy of this country for some years past for the spiritual needs of the parishes to unite superfluous benefices. The amount of money at the disposal of the Church to-day and the amount of support which it receives are not sufficient to justify all the benefices which have existed in the past. Under the powers given in 1923 and 1919 the principle of uniting benefices, and if necessary getting rid of superfluous churches, has now become a part of the ecclesiastical policy of this country, and it has proved of wise provision in the circumstances, because we have to cut our coat according to our cloth, and we cannot support so many benefices as could have been supported in the old days. Undoubtedly, if there be a number of churches of any historic value, this can he provided for; but, if on the other hand, there be greatly increasing need to build churches in those parishes which are springing up in the dioceses of London, Southwark, and Chelmsford, then we do establish a case for using the money to be obtained while carefully saving those historic and valueless churches, for having new churches in new areas where there are now no churches at all.
You have to balance the spiritual importance of the Church on the one hand, and the historic value on the other. I believe that the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) basin this Measure exactly balanced these two competing claims. He has had regard to both demands and, in the result, he has produced a Measure which has gone right through the National Assembly and has been considered at every point, and is believed to protect the historic value of the churches and not hamper the Church in realising money from churches
which have no value. The object is not to destroy churches, but to use Church money where it can best be used for Church purposes and at the same time protect any church of archaeofogical value. This Measure permits the transference of money to other parts of the Diocese where it is needed and it does not destroy or mutilate any church of historic value. I hope the House will, on consideration, come to the conclusion that the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University has achieved that object and will give this Measure its support.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: It is with great regret that I find myself to-night in opposition to the Noble Lord who has introduced this Motion. I regret this because I so often find myself in agreement with him, and I regret it still more because of the amount of work which I know he has devoted to this Measure, and which, if this Resolution be not passed, will be temporarily wasted. I regret it, in the third place, because, if it became in any way a habit of this House to reject Measures which came down from the Church Assembly, we Should he taking up a position which would lead to the raising of very difficult problems for the future. I understand that this Measure was framed for the purpose of satisfying public opinion, which was nervous about the fate of City churches. The intention was to satisfy public opinion, and, unfortunately, that is exactly what it has not done. The Corporation of the City of London took the exceptional course of appearing here at the Bar to present a petition against the Measure, and I myself have been invited by a number of learned and artistic societies to oppose it on their behalf—on behalf, that is to say, of, among others, the Royal Academy, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the National Trust, the Society of Antiquaries, and other influential bodies; and it surely is a matter deserving of grave consideration when influential bodies of that kind are dissatisfied with the proposals of the Measure we are considering.
I shall endeavour to cut as short as possible the remarks I wish to make, because I am afraid this Debate will go on till a late hour and I do not wish
unduly to prolong it. The main point I wish to emphasise is that there is a very easy and simple way of getting out of this difficulty. I myself, and, I daresay, most Members of this House, would be in sympathy with the general proposals of this Measure, apart from those that affect City churches. As to the union of benefices, I have no doubt that the majority of us would be happy to support any wise proposals that would have the effect of uniting benefices and liberating some of their salaries for religious purposes. Why, then, should we not have been satisfied with the perfectly simple procedure of applying to the Church Assembly and requesting the appointment of a Commission representative of the artistic, historical and monumental bodies in this country? Why should not such a committee have been brought together and asked to draw up a list of churches in the City of London which, in no circumstances whatever, should be sold or destroyed? The Noble Lord himself could probably do it many of us could do it: it would be perfectly easy to draw up a list of churches that are obviously of archaeofogical and monumental interest and importance. If a schedule of those churches were presented to Members of this House, with an expression of opinion that they should on no account at any time be sold or destroyed, I imagine that a Measure of that kind would pass through this House without the smallest difficulty.
The fact that, as the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has said, country churches—through an oversight, as I would say, of this House—are liable to be pulled down and their sites sold, merely comes to my knowledge as a great misfortune. We do not want to use that as a precedent for carrying the same kind of thing into the City of London; rather should the danger that seems to us to impend over the City churches lead us to legislate for the protection also of the country churches. However that may be, our problem today is not that of the country churches but that of the City churches. The Noble Lord says, with reason, that there are a great many impediments in the Bill to the destruction of churches. There is an obstacle race with four very difficult obstacles to pass. There is no doubt that is true, but why have they not indicated
the churches which can never be destroyed? Why have they not agreed to produce such a list if it is not because they wish to keep the door open for the destruction of any church whatever in the City of London. If it was not for that, surely they would have given us this list and protected the churches for ever. But if this Measure is turned down to-night, I do not think it need cause any very great disturbance to the Church Assembly. They have only to meet our doubts about the particular churches. They have only to refer to the technical body of experts the decision as to which churches should be kept and which might possibly be destroyed, and I feel sure their Measure will receive our assent. I received to-day, as we all did, a certain paper headed "A reply to the Corporation of London," and I found in it these words:
The storm about the City churches has just about as much reason behind it as the civic storm generated by the slogan, 'Greet is Diana of the Ephesians.'
There is in the City of London another god besides Diana of the Ephesians. There is the great god Mammon, and it Is to Mammon, rather than Diana of the Ephesians that this Measure bends the knee. I trust we shall be wise enough to-night to defend these City churches against this destruction, which does not in fact threaten them with the powers that now exist, but we are legislating for the future, and who will say what change of public opinion might come? Who will say that the bishops, the Archbishops, the churchwardens and the other functionaries whose opinion is to be taken 100 years hence will have the same spirit that they have now? We wish to put these churches once and for all beyond the reach of the covetousness of anyone. We wish them to be set up once and for all as national monuments. If You go into the great cities of Islam, if you go to Cairo, Damascus or Bagdad, you will find numbers of mosques tumbling down and no longer used as places of worship. No one dreams of selling the site of a mosque. No one dreams of converting to lay uses a mosque which has once been set apart as a religious edifice. Why should we Christians be behind them in this matter? Once a niece of land has been consecrated for divine uses that has had a church erected upon it, it stands as an indication that the people of the City have other
views besides those of making money. They have other ideals, other aspirations. As you walk through a city like London and see these 47 churches still remaining—even in a street like Lombard Street, which is given up almost wholly to the business of life, the making of money, the running of commerce you find a church standing—it breaks the visible materialism of the City and it gives to, many just an indication, just a suggestion that there is something in the world finer and greater than mere commerce and industry. If for that purpose alone, I would have churches. Even though no longer used or not much used for worship, preserved in the heart of the cities of this country as witnesses to the existence of a higher life.

Major KINDERSLEY: There are one or two general considerations which I wish to put forward in support of the Bill. I find myself in a somewhat peculiar position. I am supposed to be a person of somewhat strong conservative convictions. I have been a churchman, a practising churchman, the whole of-my life. I have been a churchwarden for 14 years and I have had charge of church work. Yet I find myself classed as an iconoclast; as a destroyer of churches. I have even been called Oliver Cromwell. I am only waiting for someone to call me Henry VIII and to tell me that I am going to put the proceeds into my own pocket. I want the House to consider what were the objects of our ancestors in building these churches and endowing them. Surely the object was to provide spiritual ministrations and opportunities for worship to those who then lived in that neighbourhood. I am quite sure that if our ancestors were here to-night they would be very surprised to find that such an acute controversy has, unhappily, arisen over those objects of their benefaction. I do not think that if they knew that the population which they intended to benefit by endowing these livings and building these churches had moved from the neighbourhood of those buildings, that they would be against such a re-arrangement of the parishes and of the endowments as would enable those endowments to be used to-day for the benefit of the people for whom they intended them, namely, the population who have moved away from the city and
out into the suburbs and other places, and who are to-day very largely without the ministrations which our forefathers intended them to have when they gave these churches and endowments. This would be their view, and but for the fact that these churches are undoubtedly some of the finest specimens of the architecture of their time, that would be the view of this House, and it is only when we come to the churches themselves that there is a difference of opinion. I consider that the protection of these churches under this measure is infinitely greater than the protection they have at present, and that is the reason why I am in favour of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."] A building of historical importance and architectural beauty, the Bank of England, is to-day being reconstructed. Do we hear all this outcry about vandalism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] It is perfectly true that there are not the same associations attaching to it as to some of the City Churches, but there is the same historic interest, and no protest has been raised against the re-construction of the Bank of England. In this case a great deal of prejudice has been aroused and I ask the House [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] to remember that while it is right and proper that we should maintain the sepulchres of the past we should also have regard to the aims and purposes for which they were built. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]

Mr. AMMON: I think a voice from this side of the House should be heard on this Measure. The House always listens with great pleasure to the Noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, and one feels that the case for the Measure is considerably advantaged by his advocacy. Had it rested there the Vote which will be taken would have been different to what it is going to be. The right hon. and learned Member who followed the Noble Lord undid all that the Noble Lord had said. The Noble Lord said that there was no desire to pull down the churches, but my right hon. and learned Friend entered into an elaborate argument to show why they should be pulled down and for what purposes the proceeds would be devoted. This is not a new position for me to take up. As far back as 1919 I opposed this proposal when it first
appeared before the London County Council, which then came into the position as guardian of ancient monuments. An elaborate report was drawn up by the clerk to the County Council and the architect, pointing out the, tremendous historical and spiritual value these buildings had and that we could not afford to part with them; that their value could not be estimated in mere pounds, shillings and pence. I want to draw the attention of the House to a note to the original report made by the Noble Lord himself. It wants a little emphasis. The report was issued in 1919, and the note was as follows:
I must add that the removal of churches and the desecration of these sites is in itself a great evil.
Nothing can alter that point of view. What argument can be brought which would make the Noble Lord part from that position under any circumstances and take up the attitude that it is no longer a great evil? It is something of a commercial nature. We have had an instance of this in the comparison which has been made with the Bank of England. The Noble Lord in the same report said:
The suggestion thrown out in the Report that some of these churches may be used for purposes not connected with the ordinary parochial ecclesiastical work seems to me to be very fruitful, and shall not be surprised if in the future such churches are often used for the purpose of these wider living problems.
These churches are now used for these specific purposes, and to attack them in this way is not going to advance their spiritual condition. These churches should be retained regardless of creed or profession. Jews, Roman Catholics, Nonconformists and Anglicans all had to con-tribute to them. Therefore no particular denomination has any right to lay any particular claim to them. They belong to the community; they are part of our architectural legacy and are our great spiritual heritage. Over and above even that, one remembers that it has been said, by those who would destroy them, that the proceeds are to be used to develop work in other directions. Would it be unfair to point out that other denominations supply their own means of ministering to the spiritual wants of the people? Surely it is no credit to a great, wealthy and powerful religious denomination to come here and in effect admit that its followers and supporters are not
prepared to sacrifice themselves in order to meet their spiritual needs. I would paraphrase the words of the Noble Lord by saying, do not throw down these walls—these walls which are our heritage and have made a mute appeal to all generations, pointing away from those material things that largely possess and compass our lives. Rather should we, in these days of materialism, set aside mere finance, and leave nothing undone to preserve, as an appeal to this and succeeding generations, these monuments which speak in stone, and by their association with the higher aspirations of men point to something very much bigger than the sordid affairs of daily life.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I apologise for making, at this hour, a further intrusion on the patience of the House. I would like to say at the outset how very distasteful it is to me to find myself, on this particular matter, in sharp disagreement with my Noble Friend, for there is no one who has a higher esteem than I have for the earnestness with which he always addresses the House on these subjects. It appears to me that the very natural impatience which the House has been showing for the last quarter of an hour—very natural at this hour of the night—only brings forcibly before us what strikes me so much with regard to this proposal, namely, the extremely unfortunate procedure which is imposed upon us by proposals of this sort. Here we have a Measure presented to us embodying very important principles and a very considerable mass of important detail, all of which is worthy of examination and discussion by this House; and yet it is only thrown at us when the ordinary business of the House has been brought to a close, and it is thrown at us in a form which leaves us no power to do anything except to take or leave it as a whole. We have no right to amend it in the smallest particular
That is the outcome of the procedure laid down by the Amending Act of 1919, a Measure which is an example of ill-considered legislation. It was passed immediately after the War, when the minds of the country and the House were engrossed by very different matters and the House was disposed to give its assent to almost any proposal that came from
an official source. The support of many of us was gained for that Measure by the assurance that nothing we were then doing would impair in the slightest degree the control of Parliament over legislation of this sort. Therefore, in considering this matter we may leave on one side any suggestion—I agree that my Noble Friend did not make any such suggestion, bat it has been made elsewhere—that Parliament will be in any way encroaching upon the autonomous powers conferred upon the Church or interfering in a matter with which Parliament is not properly concerned. I cannot help feeling that, in the circumstances which I have described, when there is no power of amendment, the House of Commons would be very ill-advised to pass the Measure. The Measure purports to be, and is, in essence, an Amendment of the Act of 1860. I listened in vain to my Noble Friend for some adequate reason to show us why that Act is insufficient for the purpose he has in view. He gave this reason, and this reason only—and it was a reasonable one as far as it went—that the Act of 1860 would not enable any comprehensive scheme to be made for a number of different parishes. I agree. I accept that reason. If my Noble Friend had been in a position to bring before the House a proposal for amending the Act in that particular, or if we were in a position to deal with the proposal now before us so as to restrict it to amending the Act in that particular, I should be among the supporters of my Noble Friend. But I find that in the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee these words are used—
The most important difference between this Measure and the Union of Benefices Act, 1860, is that in lieu of the consent which under that Act was required to any scheme from the vestry …and the patron of any parish affected, there is substituted the inquiry before, and the control of, the Metropolitan Benefices Board constituted under the Measure.
That is what we are concerned with—the substitution of the Benefices Board for the consent of the Vestry. I do not think my Noble Friend gave us any sufficient reason for this very important legislation to effect that particular purpose, and that purpose alone, and it appears to me that there are a great many matters in this proposal which go far beyond that defininition of the purpose in view. T am not prepared to argue that a proposal for the
union of benefices in the City of London may not be necessary or very desirable, but why is it necessary to combine the union of benefices with unlimited powers for the destruction or removal of existing churches?
I do not propose at this late hour to deal with the question from the point of view of either the artistic or the archaeofogical argument, though I think, so far as I am able to form a judgment, that on both those grounds the very strongest possible case may be made against the proposal of my Noble Friend, but there are other considerations, some of which I do not think have been mentioned in this discussion, which I should like to bring to the attention of the House before, at this late hour, it is called upon to come to a very important decision. These City churches, the destruction of which, after all, whatever my Noble Friend may say, is empowered by this proposal, are not the exclusive property of the ecclesiastical authorities. I quite agree that in a very special sense the Church holds these particular fabrics as a trustee. The City Corporation, which has appeared at the Bar of the House and by one of its representatives in this House this evening, has taken a very definite stand against the proposals with regard to these City churches. The City Corporation represents the larger interests, outside the strictly ecclesiastical interests, which are involved in any question concerning the future of these churches, and it is at least a remarkable circumstance that the Corporation of the City of London, which by tradition and by general repute is concerned exclusively or almost exclusively with purely commercial developments, can have no commercial motive for desiring to preserve the fabrics of these churches. Therefore, I think the Corporation of the City of London, representing the City in the largest sense, and in a more general sense than do any of the ecclesiastical organisations, is entitled to he heard with respect on a matter of this sort by the House of Commons.
Bet it does not rest there. It so happens, as, I think, has been pointed out by some previous speaker, that these churches in point of fact were built, not by the property of the Church, not by the
"pious founder," not, as many and probably the majority of the parochial churches of the country were built, out of contributions from pious donors—these City churches, most of which arose after the Great Fire, were built by public money. Therefore, even supposing that my Noble Friend, and those who act with him, could make out a case for the removal of these churches, and for the turning into money of their valuable sites, I say distinctly that the Church has no right to that money, and that, consequently, this proposal, which deliberately appropriates that money definitely to church purposes, ought to be resisted on that ground, and on that ground alone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I am very sorry that we should have to Debate this question at this hour. It is really nobody's fault, and there is no use in hon. Members showing impatience, because we have to discuss this matter from both sides.
I freely admit that a good many of the objections which I have made to this proposal are what, in this House, we ordinarily call Committee points. If we were discussing this as a Bill on Second Reading, with a Committee stage and a Report stage to follow, I should certainly reserve what, I admit, are comparatively minor points, to a later stage. But, unfortunately, we cannot amend this Measure. We have no Committee stage to follow; therefore, if we do not bring forward any of these minor points now, the House will have no opportunity of considering them, and it may be found subsequently that we have hastily given our assent to legislation to which there are very grave objections. My Noble Friend, in enumerating the so-called safeguards against abuses of this legislation, laid great emphasis upon the Commission to be appointed by the Bishop under Section 3 of the Measure. I would like to call the attention of hon. Members to that provision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed" and "Divide!"] We cannot divide yet. The Benefices Board may give advice to the Bishop, and, according to Sub-section (3),
The bishop shall communicate the advice given to him t; the Board to the Commission when it is appointed, who shall have regard thereto.
What in the world do these words, "who shall have regard thereto," mean?
Either the Commission is to act upon the views of the Board or it is not. Of course, any Commission would have regard to the views of an important body like the Metropolitan Benefices Board, but the only thing that is really of importance to us, who have to legislate, is to know whether, having paid regard to these views, they are to prevail or not. I quite understand how important it is that we should come to a decision. [HON, MEMBERS: "Divide, Divide!"]There are two things which I merely mention as examples of the sort of matters which are to be found in this proposal on which we are called upon in this hasty manner to decide. One is that the question of patronage is thrown into the melting pot in this Measure. There is also another matter which will involve very grave con-sequences; that is, the provision to which I will call the attention of the House—

the question of human remains. These are examples of a great number of Committee points which are involved in this proposal, and I certainly think the House will have very grave cause to repent of its haste if it should support the Motion of my Noble Friend.

Sir HENRY CRAIK rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Union of Benefices and Disposal of Churches (Metropolis) Measure, 1926, be presented to His Majesty for 'Royal Assent.

The House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 124.

Division No. 504.]
AYES.
[12.4 a.m.


Atholl, Duchess of
Lane Fox, col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smithers, Waldron


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
McLean, Major A.
Trevelyan, Ht. Hon. C. P.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dalton, Hugh
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wolmer, viscount


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)



Guest. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd. Henley)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Major Kindersley and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir George Courthope.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Edwards, C, (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, weston-s.-M.)
Kelly, W. T.


Ammon, Charles George
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kinloeh-Cooke, Sir Clement


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fenby, T.D.
Lindley, F. W.


Astor, Viscountess
Forrest, W.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Balniel, Lord
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gardner, J. P.
MacIntyre, Ian


Barr, J.
Gates, Percy
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Batey, Joseph
Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, F. A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Grace, John
Margesson, Captain D,


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W
Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Murchison, C. K.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Nicholson, 0. (Westminster]


Burman, J. B.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Plrsf'ld.)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Penny, Frederick George


Butler. Sir Geoffrey
Hayday, Arthur
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hayes, John Henry
Ponsonby, Arthur


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Potts, John S.


Charleton, H. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Clayton, G. C.
Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.
Hills, Major John Walter
Purcell, A. A.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Remer, J. R.


Craik. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Remnant, sir James


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Holland, Sir Arthur
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Rice, sir Frederick


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, s.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Day, Colonel Harry
Hutchison, G. A.Clark(Midl'n & P'hi's)
Rye. F. G.


Dunnico, H.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Saklatvala, Shapurjt


Eden, Captain Anthony
Jacob, A. E.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wallace, Captain D. E.
wise, Sir Fredric


Sandon, Lord
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Savery, S. S.
Watson, Sir F, (Pudsey and Otley)
Woodcock. Colonel H. C.


Scrymgeour, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe
Wells, S. R.



Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Mr. Edward Grenfell and Sir


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Thomas Vansittart Bowater.


Tinne, J. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



Question, "That the Question be now put," and agreed to.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr.

SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.